Re: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)

... An eight terabyte hard drive will be able to store the entire Bitcoin blockchain for the next six years easily, and that is with a two megabyte blocksize limit.

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-Internal-Hard-Drive/dp/B00XS423SC

Assuming Bitcoin adoption is poor & we don't need to bump blocksize again. 2MB gives us what, ~6tps, and we're ~2 - 3tps now?

Yeah, it essentially doubles throughput. This will make a huge practical difference in terms of adoption over the next few years.

Oh, I agree that it's better than nothing, but in a futile sort of way. I mean, if you don't count on Bitcoin's userbase >doubling in 6 years...

2MB * 144 blocks per day * 365 days * 6 years = 0.63 TB

Because not all blocks can be full, we are looking for 0.5 TB in next 6 years when users will probably have 10-100 TB HDDs in 6 years. If someone really think a bit technically about it and dont spread the FUD about decentralization and how Bitcoin cant scale anyway with onchain transanctions, he would come to conclusion let scale onchain transanctions as much as possible to still keep decentralization - 0.5 TB HDD storage in next 6 years will not break decentralization, even 1TB or 2 TB in next 6 years will not break decentralization either

.

But keep posting FUD smallblockers in a atempt to hurt Bitcoin adoption as much as possible to help your goals whatever these are...

I think keeping the 1M block cap is suicidal. Which is not to say that doubling it is a solution. And not to imply that "smallblockers" do not have some valid points.
The price of storage devices is neither here nor there.
Miners don't currently mine empty blocks in hopes of keeping the blockchain trim & saving some HD space. Care to guess why they do it?
Care to guess how likely that shit is to become pandemic as the blocksize is raised?