Beyond that, let's not repeat the same arguments about the burden of running a node. I'm focusing on the economic aspect of small block sizes. If you want to compete with Visa, you need gigabytes of block size. If you recognize the sustainability issues that arise from "scaling" to gigabytes of block size, you need to stop comparing it with Visa and find another way to scale the system.
again..
you are exaggerating visa.. by not understanding your visa measures are based on:
a. multiple networks of separate currencies and payment systems branded as "visa" and then trying to compare that to bitcoin as one network..
b. extremities of a failed comparison to suggest bitcoin becomes a "one world currency"
c. exaggerations of numbers of actual transactions performed by visa
also your exaggerations are based on a concept of LEAPING to extremities of "gigabyte" as a way to AVOID conversations of SCALING
you have been trained by an idiot to make arguments against SCALING bitcoin by using stupidity statements about scenarios of other networks and also of stupidity statements of leaping
as for the "node burden"
you promote that your favoured other network(LN) can handle millions of transactions a second.. which. via their own mechanisms of gossip updates and routing onion messages means if they want to suggest their nodes can handle millions of datapackets a second.. then its not a device, internet, user, node issue to handle millions of transaction lengths per second
also looking at the mempool quota.. (300mb-500mb) nodes already do and have the ability to relay and verify hundreds of megabytes thus nodes can handle it.
and like said and said by many, blocks dont need to propogate every transactions again at a mining pools block solution event. something you could learn if you took the time to learn about bitcoin instead of wasting time learning about how to promote your favoured other network(LN)
but like many people are trying to tell you, leaping to a block of 300mb-1gb is never been the argument for any year of bitcoiners tryin to teach you reality.. scaling is about adjustable incremental additions over time.. and guess what, mining pools get to decide how much they fill a block. if the propagation of their filled block causes delay that can cause their block to orphan due to a faster competitor block.. then pools will decide the safe amount..
yep the actual economics is that even if we did lean to allow a 1gb block.. and it was found that the first mining pool that tried it had their block orphaned due to latency issues.. the next block they try even if protocol limit stayed at 1gb, would be they would only fill 500mb
and if those blocks orphan, they would try 250mb, then 125mb
infact if there was a 1gb protocol limit.. pools would start from 4mb and increment to 8mb and see if that block orphans, then try 16mb and see if that block orphans all the way to a amount that does orphan to know current network ability.. even if there was a protocol limit of 1gb
meaning there is actually an economic incentive that mining pools would perform to SCALE blocks even if the protocol hard limit was 1gb
mining pools would decide their own safe limit via scaling/incrementing of blocksize growth below the hard limit to pretend their blocks being orphaned
its like 2009-2015 where even though the 32mb-1mb limit existed.. the network 2009-2013 only filled blocks in increments upto 0.5mb then upto 1mb leading to 2015, .. thus your statements of pretending the network would fail if there was a large limit, is false
as for the revenue for miners.. you are stupidly ignoring the ACTUAL market of the bitcoin (fiat price), you dont need people to be forced to pay more sat fee, the actual fiat market price increases how much each sat is worth as a way to compensate miners without increasing the number of sats people pay as fee
yep the actual economics of bitcoin is FIAT market price of sats.. not how many sats are needed to be spent to afford the fiat costs
also another failed script of your mentor(hardware cost of PC to be a node) is that if he thinks people who transact on bitcoin daily should pay $20+ per tx as being reasonable fee.. then he is also saying its reasonable for people to pay $7200 a year to use bitcoin.. so any arguments about paying just $500 every 5 years for a PC become moot point about affordability if he thinks paying $36000 every 5 years on fee's alone is "fine and reasonable"
so learn about how bitcoin works(block creation/propagation/tx relay/mining pools/mempools/nodes/asic miners) and the economics of bitcoin(the deflationary effect of the market price)
