And if that each person wanted to make just 32 transactions to different people bcash would need 30yrs to process that. Think about that!
I have thought about that. Today, that is indeed the case. Or even maybe longer - as 32MB is the currently supported max, which is subject to miners' decisions to create blocks smaller than max.
Which is, of course, why there has been discussion within the BCH development community -- for as long as there has been a BCH -- on other orthogonal approaches to scaling.
So while true today, it will be false for some value of 'tomorrow'.
In the meantime, BCH is not suiciding itself for the sake of some illusory benefit of 'decentralization' along some axis that is entirely irrelevant.
Orthogonal?
Yes. Do you understand the term? In this case, meaning scaling in a manner unrelated to the max block size.
You mean like side chains!
Sidechainy things are within the universe of things being discussed, though certainly not exclusively, nor even leadingly.
WTF that wasn't in Satoshi's white paper!!!
Point?
Wait so you're saying that different solutions might come in the future so time and resources are better spent on near term issues
In a manner of speaking, yes. Time tested engineering principles focus on the bang-for-the-buck solutions. Always.
However, it is not 'might come'. We know of several scaling solutions orthogonal to increasing the max block size. The discussions underway are focused upon cost/benefit analysis. Or alternately risk/benefit analysis. You know - the essence of engineering.