> Therefore it is important that it be reasonably convenient to run full nodes for decentralisation security.

Yes, and I'm suggesting to define what "reasonably convenient" is in 2016. Most likely node operators have more than a little headroom for larger blocks. If you just use more of the processing power / storage / bandwidth you very likely already paid for then there is no increase in costs.

> I think you maybe misunderstanding what the Chinese miners said also, about 8MB, that was a cap on the maximum they felt they could handle with current network infrastructure.

And what they felt "remained fair to all to all miners and node operators worldwide." Increasing network connection requirements might even decrease mining centralization right now.



2015-09-11 18:47 GMT+02:00 Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>:
Bitcoin security depends on the enforcement of consensus rules which
is done by economically dependent full nodes.  This is distinct from
miners fullnodes, and balances miners interests, otherwise SPV nodes
and decentralisation of policy would tend degrade, I think.  Therefore
it is important that it be reasonably convenient to run full nodes for
decentralisation security.

Also you may want to read this summary of Bitcoin decentralisation by Mark:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h7eei/greg_luke_adam_if_xt_takes_over_and_wins_the/cu53eq3

I think you maybe misunderstanding what the Chinese miners said also,
about 8MB, that was a cap on the maximum they felt they could handle
with current network infrastructure.

I had proposed 2-4-8MB growing over a 4 year time frame with 2MB once
the hard-fork is upgraded by everyone in the network.  (I dont
consider miner triggers, as with soft-fork upgrades, to be an
appropriate roll out mechanism because it is more important that
economically dependent full nodes upgrade, though it can be useful to
know that miners also have upgraded to a reasonable extent to avoid a
temporary hashrate drop off affecting security).

Adam

On 9 September 2015 at 15:00, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I think the overlap of people who want to run a serious mining operation and
> people who are unable to afford a slightly above average internet connection
> is infinitesimally small.
>
> 2015-09-09 20:51 GMT+02:00 Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc>:
>>
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2015 8:36 PM, "Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev"
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > I propose to:
>> >
>> > a) assess what blocklimit is currently technically possible without
>> > driving up costs of running a node up too much. Most systems currently
>> > running a fullnode probably have some capacity left.
>>
>> What about the risk of further increasing mining centralization?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>