| > 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. |