[h1d]

The reason is not because of the vision. Also if anyone thinks about it as a replacement of paypal/visa, they know scaling via increased block size is not going to cut it. 7tx/s doen't do much good if scaled linearly.

It was a flaw in the Bitcoin specification that there was a conflict of interest between miners and users that when more blocks are filled, the more fee the miners get, thus miners have no incentive to make the blocks less congested.

Not sure how doubling the block size suddenly disallows users from validating the blocks, besides, as the entire data is already around 160GB or so, none of the mobile wallets contain the full data and are delegating much of the credibility of the chain to others' full nodes.

Bitcoin Cash is mostly built around the Chinese mining community who have been rejecting to activate segwit for a while since their asicboost that helps their mining speed by 20-30% was about to become unusable, though they claim it's not used.

And with 8MB for Bitcoin Cash it would make the chain data so large after several years, if block spaces get filled you will be able to barely host a node on a desktop with TBs of storage not to mention hosting on clouds would be pretty expensive leading to centralization.

[taysic]

"7tx/s doen't do much good if scaled linearly"

Why not? Bitcoin Cash may be more vocal in the Chinese miner community but there are plenty of Americans who believe in it too. The storage issue both chains will have to deal with if they are used in any big capacity

[PeterisP]

Because solutions that are practical for getting 2x or 10x the capacity aren't sufficient, since getting used in big capacity requires a vision that can give a thousandfold increase, and increasing the block size can't ever provide that in a practical manner.

If you want to scale a huge cliff, going to fetch a 20 feet ladder will not help you.

[jgord]

I think that its quite possible that we can see scaling of 1000x on the linear blockchain, without fundamentally changing the economic/security properties.

Increasing blocksize is just the first thing to do of many engineering optimizations. If you want to climb Everest, you first need to reach base camp.

Even if LN works great and scales beautifully, we will still need that 100x increase in the blockchain that it settles on. LN itself will create transaction demand - people aren't paying $2.50 in fees now to buy a $3 coffee with bitcoin.

[Frogolocalypse]

> I think that its quite possible that we can see scaling of 1000x on the linear blockchain

In order for your fantasy to become a reality the tens of thousands of current users of the core ref nodes would have to uninstall their node clients and permanently remove their ability to ever validate their transactions on the blockchain. That is never going to happen.

[CyberDildonics]

8MB blocks means 13KB/s to sync with the chain -when blocks are full-. The numbers for this argument don't work out at all.