The good news is we have a long way to go. 14nm is 140 angstrom. An atom is only about 1 angstrom in diameter. So, there remains tons of room for size reduction before we get to the atom. Looks like memory is going to be even cheaper.
Depending on who you quote you have: (so yes)
Not a problem at all. One atom has many electrons. Electron 'spin' has been used as a memory in the past. So, the lower limit actually goes lower than the atomic level.
You make it sound like switching to that would be easy.
I don't care one bit if poor countries can't keep up with the cost to make a reliable network. If only first world countries can afford to make nodes, and those nodes enable a successful cryptocurrency network, I just don't care that Zimbabwei is left out of participation. Bitcoin is not here for the purpose of advancing socialism. I don't like a network designed so that it will run on 'shit' hardware for the purpose of assuring everyone can participate. It is not an important aspect of cryptocurrency that we assure all the downtrodden can have an equal chance to contribute to the network.
So you want to restrict nodes to only developed places (1st world countries)? So the end result is even further centralizing Bitcoin than it already is, correct? The reasoning is that you hope that: more capacity = more users = higher prices, right?
Just curious, how many people who consider $30 a large sum of money currently run nodes? How would it matter if Angola got a few? Describe in detail plz.
If X amount of people consider Y to be a large sum of money and Y is required to run a node, then obviously people from X would not be running a node in the first place. I'm not sure why you posted a map of the nodes though. As for that $30 example, take a look at any country where the minimum daily wage is <$1.
bitcoin nodes will grow up like it deserve
No. There's no financial incentive to run one. While it might be true that: more users == more nodes, we would be just in the area of speculation.
