These are not addressing the block size scaling constraint. They are just referring to how fast nodes can verify transaction signatures. The former is the bandwidth elephant in the room and can't be scaled with existing consensus technology unless the mining is centralized on fiber connected servers.
In fairness there are many fiber connected homes now. Not everyone and not everywhere but it's become fairly common.
I can't even get reliable 3 Mbps download with 512 Kbps upload where I am. Many users will be on wireless devices.
One of the arguments for being able to withstand the government's documented moves towards controlling Bitcoin[1], is that mining can move to any jurisdiction and any means of internet connection, even low bandwidth shortwave or HAM radio.
If we are relegated to the few fiber connections well controlled by the monopolistic telcoms in the G7 or G20, then we've lost the battle.
| [1] |
A 51% attack can create as many Bitcoins as it wants to.
I think Bitcoin investors do not really believe it can happen, because they would not invest in inflatacoin.
But it is much more likely than they believe.
Everyone knows that Bitcoin mining MUST become more centralized (in order to scale up transactions) and thus it will likely (almost certainly IMO) eventually become controlled by the G20 that can regulate a few 100s of mining nodes. Will be justified by the G20 doing coordination against terrorism, money laundering, and tax cheating.
And the masses who use Coinbase wallets and other large providers such as the Blockstream.com (3 million wallets) CEO shaking hands with the Prime Minister of the UK upthread, won't care! They are sheep. They follow. They are preoccupied.
|