Quote from: hisslyness on April 07, 2019, 07:13:53 AM

I am not saying i want to lower the blocksize now, i meant if i had to choose between the two, i would pick lower the blocksize, as i see more benefits from that, than raising the block size.

I told you my thinking behind why larger blocks will not solve the unconfirmed transaction issue with Bitcoin. It is a bandaid fix, that will need to be re-address time and time again!

We need a solution that is outside normal way of thinking, forcing transaction off chain and to layer 2 and yes the only way to do that is too keep the blocksize where it is or smaller and with the benefits that come with that, although most people will see it as a negative....

lowering the current blockchain size to either increase fees or maybe to force people to l2, as some have suggested, seems foolish. at this size and tx load we doing fine. right now we just need plans in place in case there is an onslaught of new people trying to get on board for the next fomo train.

the future though? i do believe some core devs (or some lightning devs) have admitted that for lighting to work with btc well into the futures forecast of far heavier loads, the base layer needs more room just for lightning channels to open and close in a timely manner alone. bigger blocks at some point seems to be a given. but slow growth, as needed and well tested is what i would like to see.

as long as the btc base layer can run on consumer/prosumer level hardware, im good. something thats needs enterprise level stuff? no thanks.

full node running at home = trust