this is where doomsday theories rather than rational thought comes in.
some want 4mb (core) some want more. some want onchain some want 100% use offchain. thats where compromises come in and finding the acceptable level.
this "terrabyte block" doomsday has been shot out the park last year. the current compromise is 2mb bas 4mb weight.
the everthing has to be offchain has been shot out the park. the current compromise is expand onchain and allow offchain for freedom of choice.
i dont know why anyone is talking about terrabytes, apart from the doomsdayers who want to twist the future to distract the present
i dont know why anyone is talking about only offchain will work, apart from the doomsdayers who want to twist the future to distract the present
Well it is not really a "dooms day theory" but a rational thought questioning and speculating on what would happen if we had bigger blocks. As said before storage would be solved by having cheaper HD available but the question on how bandwidth is limited in a lot of areas in the world that it might become a problem if the blockchain has become really large enough and still growing.
I believe that is one area of concern for the big blockers.
there is misunderstandings and our misrepresenting of what a hard fork is.
ethereum was not a consensus hard fork it was a controversial fork.
ethereum bypassed consensus orphaning mechanism and literally banned communicating with nodes of different rules to avoid orphaning the minority. "--oppose-dao-fork"
it is actually Gmaxwell of blockstream that proposed that BU should split, rather than use the consensus mechanism which BU(ver) wants.
a consensus mechanism is what the community want to happen. rather than a dictatorial split.
consensus, everyone wins and everyone continues.
controversial, dictator wins and everyone else f**ks off
I now understand your view on this from your posts from the other threads. Thank you for enlightening us on the real situation.