> What are you talking about, there are no such requirements
"Bitcoin resource requirement minimization" does not mean "this is an existing requirement in the protocol". Resource minimization, indeed even resource maximization, is not expressible in the Bitcoin consensus protocol as a rule. Instead I was talking about the idea that Bitcoin resource requirements can be minimized. By minimizing the resource requirements, you make Bitcoin more cheap and easily accessible, and you can accrue benefits of tech development to process and handle the existing Bitcoin system on ever-cheapening computer hardware.
> and current requirements are nowhere close to being beyond the reach of a typical user
I guess that depends on what you consider a typical user. A lot of those "typical users" are complaining about the mere possibility of $20 Bitcoin transaction fees in the future, so it sounds like a $20/year node cost might not be compatible with the "typical Bitcoin user". In general to encourage adoption we should not cut off users from their nodes participating in the Bitcoin network.
> The alternative to a hard limit on block size is to have no limit
You mean the "transaction fee market without a block size as long as selfish mining doesn't exist" paper? That particular paper's assumptions have been dispute for a while now, a bunch of his points were refuted... indeed he even agreed to update his paper, although he hasn't done this yet, and instead backtracked, and meanwhile hasn't provided new arguments against the refutations. See http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3
> Satoshi himself said a number of times that the 1MB block limit was a _temporary_ measure that should be lifted in the future.
Argument from authority. Also, I think the Bitcoin developers have learned more about Bitcoin since Satoshi's disappearance, which can be used to inform ourselves and evaluate whether we think Satoshi was wrong about the effects of lifting the block size limit upwards.
"Bitcoin resource requirement minimization" does not mean "this is an existing requirement in the protocol". Resource minimization, indeed even resource maximization, is not expressible in the Bitcoin consensus protocol as a rule. Instead I was talking about the idea that Bitcoin resource requirements can be minimized. By minimizing the resource requirements, you make Bitcoin more cheap and easily accessible, and you can accrue benefits of tech development to process and handle the existing Bitcoin system on ever-cheapening computer hardware.
> and current requirements are nowhere close to being beyond the reach of a typical user
I guess that depends on what you consider a typical user. A lot of those "typical users" are complaining about the mere possibility of $20 Bitcoin transaction fees in the future, so it sounds like a $20/year node cost might not be compatible with the "typical Bitcoin user". In general to encourage adoption we should not cut off users from their nodes participating in the Bitcoin network.
> The alternative to a hard limit on block size is to have no limit
You mean the "transaction fee market without a block size as long as selfish mining doesn't exist" paper? That particular paper's assumptions have been dispute for a while now, a bunch of his points were refuted... indeed he even agreed to update his paper, although he hasn't done this yet, and instead backtracked, and meanwhile hasn't provided new arguments against the refutations. See http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3
> Satoshi himself said a number of times that the 1MB block limit was a _temporary_ measure that should be lifted in the future.
Argument from authority. Also, I think the Bitcoin developers have learned more about Bitcoin since Satoshi's disappearance, which can be used to inform ourselves and evaluate whether we think Satoshi was wrong about the effects of lifting the block size limit upwards.