[CyberDildonics]

> So large transaction volumes aren't going to be an issue because there's also going to be multiple blockchains to spread the transaction volume across?

No, large transaction volumes aren't going to be an issue either way. However there already are multiple blockchains and anyone that can watch youtube can sync with all of them if they want to.

> I'm not sure that's any better, because you'd either be heavily dependent on intermediary exchange services and be exposed to exchange rate fluctuations

This makes zero sense. Anyone can choose whatever combination of whatever they want and most people never touch the normal chain. This is the reality right now, there are lots of choices, people can use any or all of them. Why would transaction volumes change any of this? This isn't a prediction of the future, this something that has already happened years ago.

> The problem is that the cost compounds, so comparing the cost to running a refrigerator isn't exactly fair.

No it doesn't.

> On the other hand, running a full node might cost $90/year today, but 5 years from now would cost $450 upfront + $90/year.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. A full node for every crypto currency can be run on a $35 raspberry pi with a hard drive hooked up by anyone that can watch a youtube video. Your numbers are just a lie, the entire bitcoin chain is 1/25th of an 8TB hard drive which can be bought new for $150 USD.

> This goes back to the decentralization debate. Needing a huge upfront investment to fully participate in the network is very much anti-decentralization.

Then it's a good thing that isn't true, since most people never touch it and those that do probably don't have to spend anything at all.

These are lies, there is no truth to what you are saying and you know it. If there was any validity you would have a better explanation than made up numbers and nothing else. You are predicting something as if it hasn't already been passed by. No amount of circular logic warps reality to what you want it to be. The bigger question is why you are so desperate to convince people that cryptocurrencies can't scale.

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth.ht...

[gruez]

>No, large transaction volumes aren't going to be an issue either way.

elaborate?

>This makes zero sense. Anyone can choose whatever combination of whatever they want and most people never touch the normal chain. This is the reality right now, there are lots of choices, people can use any or all of them. Why would transaction volumes change any of this?

It makes zero sense because I was trying to infer your argument. Let's try again then: what does having multiple chains have to do with scalability?

>That makes absolutely no sense at all. A full node for every crypto currency can be run on a $35 raspberry pi with a hard drive hooked up by anyone that can watch a youtube video. Your numbers are just a lie, the entire bitcoin chain is 1/25th of an 8TB hard drive which can be bought new for $150 USD.

Those are with present numbers which have the 1MB limit in place. Clearly those assumptions won't hold if we have much larger blocks.

>Then it's a good thing that isn't true, since most people never touch it and those that do probably don't have to spend anything at all.

Sounds like you're not denying the anti-decentralization aspect at all, but rather arguing that it doesn't matter.

>These are lies, there is no truth to what you are saying and you know it.

Please follow the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Specifically "Assume good faith".

> If there was any validity you would have a better explanation than made up numbers and nothing else.

I don't get it which numbers are made up? The $90/year figure came from a sibling comment that was discussing the hypothetical storage requirement for bitcoin if it processed half of visa's transaction volume. That was surprisingly close to the annual electricity cost for the best selling refrigerator on bestbuy.com[1], so that's what I assumed you were talking about when it comes to costs. If you don't agree with these numbers, feel free to present your calculations.

[1] https://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-26-5-cu-ft-large-capaci...

[CyberDildonics]

> elaborate?

That's all I've been doing.

> Those are with present numbers which have the 1MB limit in place. Clearly those assumptions won't hold if we have much larger blocks.

There is a lot of head room. Anyone can see this. Ten years of transactions has taken up $6 of hard drive space TOTAL while the average fee PER TRANSACTION is almost $9 right now.

> Sounds like you're not denying the anti-decentralization aspect at all, but rather arguing that it doesn't matter.

That's ridiculous. Decentralization is important and none of this has much effect on decentralization at all. You haven't actually explained why there would be any problem with decentralization because you can't. There is no barrier to entry for anyone who wants to sync with any chain so they can mine it or accept it.

> Specifically "Assume good faith".

Say something reasonable that isn't contradicted by grade school math. You haven't backed up anything you have said with anything that makes sense.

> I don't get it which numbers are made up?

Correct, you don't get it. Your idea that someone has to spend $450 on what would be 24TB is nonsense.

Why don't you explain to me what exactly you think will happen if throughput is more than a few transactions per second? Ethereum already exceeds bitcoin's volume. Bitcoin Cash tested huge blocks years ago, what exactly do you think will happen and why? Maybe you just don't want people to realize that there is no systemic reason for bitcoin being capped, because if they do it will become a relic.