Topic: How does block size harm decentralization? - page 4. (Read 755 times)

its not even about storage
1mb base block =52gb a year(4mb=~200gb)
i can get a 256gb microsd card(size of a fingernail)
i can get a couple terrabyte hard drive for less than a week of groceries cost

funny thing is those worried about 1mb+=bad, before 2017 suddenly shut up when it became convenient to allow 4mb to allow the gateway to another network..

yet millions-billions do facetime/stream HDTV,they play online games and upload the gaming while narrating while streaming HD content all the same time.
and happily would take up hundreds of gigabytes of data. just so they can run around a map shooting people

but yet strangely the rhetoric of same data, same speeds becomes suddenly impossible in regards to bitcoin

I don't think the network is the problem, sure initial download of the blockchain would take a really really long time (especially if you verify every tx signature,  but that can be skipped anyway), but day to day broadcast of blocks and transactions would be fine.

My understanding is that it's just a disk storage issue.
Again I don't think it's a network issue. If the block size was 8mb like in BIP-101 then it would be 13.33kb/s. I'm certain modern day CPUs can handle the tx verification even if we increased the # of txs a lot, and there really doesn't seem to be a network issue unless I'm totally missing something; so it must be storage.

the debate is that those that want people to be pushed off bitcoin and into other networks will say bitcoin cant scale and blockchains ar broke because they want people to use commercialised networks/services.

the myth presented about bitcoin is the whole "gigabytes by midnight" fud that is being pushed by those commercial lovers, to make is sound like bitcoin has to remain at 1mb base block or jump to gigabytes.

the funny part is that progressive SCALING (step by step growth) like what WAS allowed 2009-2015 (0.25mb, 0.5mb, 0.75mb,1mb) pretty much went stagnant at 2015

even the supposed 'segwit' has not achieved a scaling solution ONCHAIN and we are still stuck at the implied limit of 600k transactions a day, while segwits true purpose is to be used as the gate way tx format for an alternative network

even though if you do the math of sending a full block to another user 1block of 1mb legacy transactions every ~10 minutes is1.66kb/s (even dialup can handle that)

so yea those against BITCOIN adoption/scaling are not really true 'bitcoiners' as they prefer to be stuck shouting out that bitcoin cant scale beyond 1999's technology

the only reason to keep to the implied 600k tx a day, is purely to incentivise commercial services to advertise their alternative networks/services while also pushing the fee's of bitcoin up to keep users from wanting to utilise the bitcoin network

I think the idea is that advances in networking technologies will mean we can transfer more data in the same amount of time as. As long as networking capacities grow quicker than the blockchain then we will be able to avoid the problem you have described.

From what I understand, a larger block size would mean more transactions (or data in general) can be included in each block effectively increasing the number of transactions the network can handle in a finite time frame (at least 1 block long). Consequently, the size of the blockchain will increase at a greater rate since more data is being added everytime a block is accepted. Eventually, this would mean the blockchain would be too large to store so only dedicated companies will be able to have full nodes, resulting in the centralization of mining.

Wouldn't that happen eventually anyway? Sure it'll take longer but unless the chain is pruned how will people be able to store it?

The only people running full nodes now are enthusiasts who like verifying everything themselves (though it's getting harder since the blockchain is already pretty big), pool operators, and mining farms or services like NiceHash/Blockchain.com

This is not a post in support of a change in block size or for sidechains, I'm not qualified to take a side in that debate at all lol. What are the consequences of a block size increase and more specifically how it would be harmful for bitcoin's decentralization?