Re: Blockchain size

Quote from: Vigme86 on December 18, 2018, 09:27:00 PM

I've recently discovered something is quite concerning for me, i.e. with Segwit transactions single block size will rise up to 4 Mb.
This would lead to a blockchain increase up to ~200 GB/year, while a normal laptop does not have more than 500 GB.

Right now blockchain is already at 200 GB.

It's something that the community spent a long time fighting about. As others have stated, we aren't actually using the full 4MB. Plus, the size of SegWit blocks are actually pretty reasonable considering that some of the earliest proposals about raising the blocksize were suggesting up-to-20MB blocks.

Quote from: Vigme86 on December 18, 2018, 09:27:00 PM

If LN will have a great development in the following years, and I hope I will. what about reducing block size back to 1 MB or even lower?

Since LN relies on being able to both open and settle channels on-chain, blocks can't be too small. Otherwise it could potentially cause issues with timelocks expiring if someone is spamming the blockchain. The increase SegWit provides was deemed a fair compromise.

Quote from: Vigme86 on December 18, 2018, 10:41:59 PM

Thirdly: I simply do not understand this point, it seems quite in contradiction with a peer to peer electronic cash system.
You're saying common users (i.e. people which are not using bitcoin for transactions on a daily basis) should not run a full-node, while
vast majority of bitcoiners on the internet are saying exactly the opposite, like for instance aantonop here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX0Yrv-6jVs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX0Yrv-6jVs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX0Yrv-6jVs

Why should million full nodes will cause a bottleneck ?

Lastly: I do not understand this point, I'm trying to read it again later.

Franky1 is a renowned troll and LN detractor. He despises SegWit and Lightning, so he occasionally makes shit up and hopes people believe it.