Fact: If you raise the blocksize up to a point where people can't run their own nodes, you cannot call it a peer to peer network anymore.
get the "gigabytes by midnight" script out of your head. the rises of blocksize can grow at a natural progressive rate that nodes can cope with.
core already admit 8mb is safe..
with all the code efficiencies since 2009 (libsecp256k1=5x efficient for instance),
the fact that we are not average homeline of 512mbit/s(38mbyte/10min) ADSL, but alot more as an average now
the fact that hard drives ar cheaper
the fact that the baseline raspberry Pi is now raspberrypi3
all show that 8mb is safe and admitted as such, but even so just going to 4mb is also ok. with a few tweaks ONTOP to further becoming extra safe such as limiting txsigops to 4k per tx or less forever...
all would show that there is nothing technically hindering the ability to run a full node at home
No amount of tricks can overcome the importance of a full validating node, so forget about SPV. The moment people can't have full validating nodes the whole concept of "peer to peer cash" it's game over.
and i now hope you see why the whole filters(gmaxbuzz) bridging(lukeJrbuzz) to create a cesspit of a TIER network by going soft is something i have hate of.
And 8MB is shit compared to mainstream payment transactors. You will never achieve mainstream adoption onchain.
Bitcoin will never go mainstream as payment system, that's obvious (*), so one shouldn't aim for something that will never happen. Bitcoin is a speculative asset, it is not a currency. Of course, it is a speculative asset that can be transmitted, and hence, can be used somewhat as a payment in those cases where normal payments don't work well (such as dark markets, bribing, murder on command, financing prohibited political activity, doing business away from taxes, and many other applications where fiat can only go with difficulty). But it is not a stable currency that can be used as a general payment system so that's not necessary.
It only needs to carry the load of these niche payment applications, and of course, its main application, which is speculative trading. Now, 1 MB is maybe a bit low for that, but I would be surprised if bitcoin needs orders of magnitude more for speculation transactions. After all, they essentially serve to go to exchanges, and back to wallets.
Could you argue with text please ? I'm sure you can give a logically constructed argument on which we can reason, instead of some or other video. I can't reason with videos. I watched the beginning of it, and it sounded like some rhetoric about the analogy with the internet, but rhetoric doesn't cut it.
I think my argument is quite watertight concerning the non-power of full nodes, and I've never seen a LOGICALLY ARGUMENTED rebuttal to it, that doesn't confuse full nodes with users, or doesn't confuse it with the power game of a hard fork.
(*) it is obvious because bitcoin is not a good unit of account, there's no mechanism in it that adapts the emission of bitcoin with its value with the aim to stabilize it, and bitcoiners are even proud of that. Something that is not a good unit of account (volatile value) cannot be generally used as a currency in a payment system.