Quote from: Pursuer on February 21, 2018, 10:00:59 AM

Quote from: bug.lady on February 21, 2018, 09:50:11 AM

Quote from: OmegaStarScream on February 21, 2018, 08:44:45 AM

Quote from: crypto2rule on February 21, 2018, 06:22:24 AM

I see more and more comments about community losing patience with Bitcoin developments. One result of it was the creation of Bitcoin Cash which increased the block size of Bitcoin but it seems it is not enough. I wonder why they did not created from the beginning a block size of 100MB, 200 or maybe 300MB? Why limit themselves to 8MB? By having bigger block size wouldn't they fix the issues of speed and scalability...
I learned recently (here on a different post answered) that are concerns of decentralization as a result of larger block. What if somebody could solve the concerns of decentralization in a larger block? How valuable this will be?

To run a full node, you are required to download the whole blockchain and as years pass, the file will become much bigger (with a larger block) which make the average user unable to do it and this will leave us with only big corporations doing it (centralization). There will be a point where Bcash will face the same issues we used to face before SegWit so yeah, increasing the block size is not the solution for the long term.

In the beginning of 21st century it seemed unthinkable that high quality video could be transmitted over Internet, more of that: people were unable to stream music at that time because they had very small bandwidth. And look where we are now. You have VOD readily available and affordable, for 5$ a month or whatever.

I think the same will happen to block size. Number of people on Earth is more or less limited and everybody can do only so many transactions a day. Number of transactions daily is limited that way, too. That top limit can be accommodated into blocks with that and that size. No more is needed. So we should increase the block size, knowing, that it will need to happen only to those limits, and knowing, that very soon the disk space to accommodate those limits will be very affordable for an average Joe.

the real question is
1. how much do you think is the block size limit that is needed for scaling? 8 MB? 32 MB? 100 MB?
2. how big a block do you think most people can handle with all these "advancements"? 8 MB? 32 MB? 100 MB?

it is said that VISA handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second (tps) if we want to get to that number we need 540 MB blocks.
2000 transaction/second * 60 second * 10 Min (1 block) = 1,200,000 transactions * 450 Byte on average tx size = 540,000,000 Byte or ~540 MB

unless your goals for scaling is A LOT smaller than this, there is no point in increasing the block size alone for scaling.

Your calculation is valid, but it should be the ultimate goal. We don't need to achieve it now. Currently (unfortunately, but this is our reality) VISA is still more popular than BTC when it comes to paying for stuff. But knowing that the limit exists puts those who are concerned about disk space at peace, and we can do the increases slowly, only to be able to accommodate the local tx peaks, like the one we had in Dec'17.

Also, the average tx size is smaller with SegWit.