Quote from: AdolfinWolf on February 25, 2020, 04:55:17 PM

Quote from: Khaos77 on February 25, 2020, 04:40:12 PM

More transactions capacity means lower fees for the users and more potential profit for the miners.
Maybe the dummy should explain why he want the miners to go broke and the users to be unable to afford onchain transactions. Tongue

Yet, those that pretend they care about bitcoin want to keep it crippled onchain compared to all other coins. Tongue

This should make you wonder, who actually cares about bitcoin survival and who just pretends they do. Wink

Blockchain sizes will grow for one, causing bitcoin to become even more centralized.

And, once you start increasing block sizes, where are you going to stop? 8 mb? 16 mb? 32 mb?

There's no limit to which you can go. It's really not a long term solution.

People need to realize that technology keeps improving.
And it being the long term solution becomes more apparent every day.
You claim that bitcoin can't , but LN can, they can use the same hardware. Duh!

We would start with 8mb, which will last for years.
144 blocks per day * 8mb = 1152 MB
1152 MB * 365days= 420,480 MB or ~420 GB

A 2 TB drive would last over 4 years, and that is only if every block is filled to 8MB, which it won't be.
2TB drives run $60.
(100 TB drives will probably be $60 in 4 years.)

So for all the naysayers, quit being tech pussies , time to put your big boy pants on and fix bitcoin.

I find it funny people complain that centralization of a coin that they can't even afford to personally mine is a danger.
No one cares if you can't afford $60 to run a node, you don't matter at all in the security of bitcoin.

Sorry to break it too you.
You need to run a node that actually mines or stakes to be valuable to network security.

Non-Mining or Non-Staking nodes are only followers and secure nothing.

FYI:
You know if Satoshi had been as much a naysayer as the current bitcoin community, there would never have been a bitcoin.