If you limit the transaction size to 1MB, nothing changes from having a 1MB blocksize without a transaction size limit.
There may or may not be attack vectors that could work with 2x 1 MB transactions. Just because it seems safe, that doesn't mean that it will be.
Who would ever need to fill an entire block with 1 transaction?
I'm not talking about normal usage when it comes to security problems.
You are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing at this point.
Said every person when losing their ground.
That doesn't mean you can't look at other coins as an example.
It's one thing to fork something small and centralized, and another to fork Bitcoin.
Bitcoin would become the myspace of crypto
Stop being "spoon fed" (as franky1 would put it) by Ver & co.
It does. You can't just say this every time someone disproves your statements.
It does not, as can be seen with your lack of experience in regards to large scale infrastructure.
First of all, technology has become much cheaper in the past 6 years (on average at least). And besides, who really has a hard drive measured in gigabytes anymore?
Strawman argument.
And since no one is going to buy a hard drive of less than 1TB anyway (are they even sold anymore?) your argument is mood.
Yes, they're being sold and yes I plan to buy a 1/2 TB drive.
Even worse with network. Does anyone seriously have a bandwidth so low that 266kb/s is a problem? (that would be 20MB blocks).
You obviously aren't factoring in the primary bottleneck, but let's go with this. How did you derive this number, i.e. by calculating what?