[CyberDildonics]

There aren't any advances necessary, blocks just need to be made bigger, happen more frequently or both. Bitcoin cash has 32MB blocks instead of the 700KB average that bitcoin has and monero has a dynamic system. Litecoin, dogecoin and whatever else could handle plenty more throughput by just upping their block size. There is no actual technical barrier to this.

The only reason people think it's a problem is because bitcoin and ethereum have limited themselves so much.

[bastawhiz]

Just last week this site featured an article about Chesterton's Fence:

https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/

Surely the people who design the protocols aren't intentionally sabotaging the usefulness of the blockchain with these limits? If the limits are raised, what problems are introduced, and what advances are needed to avoid them?

[CyberDildonics]

This article is abstract, hand waving, vague prediction nonsense in this context.

It already works to have large blocks, it always has. Why don't you tell me specifically and technically where you think the bottleneck is?

The CPU is a fraction of one core, bitcoin's transaction fees have been at times more than the cost of hard drive space to store the entire chain, and only servers even need to sync chains in the first place.

Bitcoin is crippled to sell a second layer. If you look at its throughput, it is literally less than a dial up modem. The average block size is 700KB every 10 minutes. You can print base64 characters on a laser printer and get more data throughput on paper.

No one has ever been able to give me a credible answer here because it doesn't exist. The best anyone can do is gish gallop with unrelated nonsense hoping that other people who read their reply can't make sense of it.