|
|
|
|
|
by npoc
777 days ago
|
|
The increased block size increases the amount of storage required to run a full node (and also the bandwidth required to sync nodes). Even at just 100 tx/sec, you need 14x the storage of a bitcoin node (so around 10TB vs 700GB for bitcoin). That puts it out of reach for many people to run and so making it more centralised. To compete with a payment rails like Visa and Mastercard, you'd need to increase that to 10000+ tx/sec, making running a node complete unfeasible for most people to run. There's simply no such thing as a decentralised blockchain network with unlimited block-size. At some point if you want to remain decentralised, you have to create layer 2+ networks that can handle the smaller, high-bandwidth transactions, and so you may as well commit to that model now and focus on making the base layer as robust as possible. Ultimately for a money to attract the most value, it needs to optimise for the very largest transactions, and offer the most robustness (i.e. most decentralisation). This is precisely what bitcoin has done. |
|
Non-mining nodes are just observers that do nothing good to the network. Is like going to war with popcorn as a weapon. Mining nodes are the only ones than can include transactions to a block.
https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf