If you can't make your point with small black letters, then there's something wrong with the statement, and not with the typography.
That's assuming an honest audience, which is not the case here.
The bandwidth vs storage issue has already been explained in very nice eloquent small black letters by several reputable people.
There was nothing wrong with their statements.
When we talk about bandwidth constraints but others stubbornly insist on pretending cheap hard drives solve that problem, it's time to start screaming.
By raising the profile of the bandwidth vs storage issue, I effectively call out those who conflate the two and force them to defend that position.
Fine, even if I "concede" that bandwidth is in fact the issue (even though I've seen anti-forkers moaning about drive space, so troll harder), can you now answer the
actual question?
The question, which you are still avoiding, is:
If you are staying on a 1MB chain when the fork happens, why do you care what the bandwidth requirements will be when they won't affect you?You aren't needed, and you're not here to lose. And by 'here' I mean "in bitcoin. You aren't in the
WoT -- you aren't in bitcoin. We can't lose what we don't have. If there is anyone reading this thread who would like to be a part of bitcoin, you should start
the process today.
The log isn't going to read itself.
I didn't know being in WoT was necessary to be able to use Bitcoin. Does that mean all those bitcoins I've sent all these years are invalid?
It's not necessary to be in the circle-jerk of trust. danielpbarron just wants to recruit more zealots to his adorable little #bitcoin-asshats club. Actually, it's worse than that. It's a power grab. Bitcoin's greatest strength is that it's permission-less and decentralised. danielpbarron wants a centralised list of "approved" participants so that he and his little club can play gatekeeper. That's a path no true fan of crypto would ever want to wander down.