Quote from: ETFbitcoin on Today at 11:19:21 AM

Quote from: GGUL on Today at 11:08:30 AM

Just as there is no valid proof that increasing the block necessarily leads to centralization.

Just imagine if you need million dollar to run a node and only bank/huge pool can run it Cheesy

P.S. i don't disagree with block increase as long as hobby user/enthusiasm can run a node with reasonable cost.

[/quote]

1. You did not provide proof about a million dollars on the node. So, it looks like FUD.

2. Now no one is demanding to increase the block to 10-100GB.
3. It will be cheaper for me to keep a node with a 10MB block than to pay$ 10 per transaction.
Do not increase the 1MB block, because it will save users money - this is a BIG LIE.
4.The fact that the node will be held by someone else, there is nothing wrong. Because a non-mining node can't harm the user in any way. After all, the user has the private keys. This is in any case better than working through Coinbase.

Quote

Quote from: GGUL on Today at 11:08:30 AM

But we have excellent proff that the current block size leads to centralization for users.

Millions of new users can't use the blockchain because they simply don't fit in. And to use bitcoin, they must cooperate with custodial services. They have no other option. Coinbase, with 25 million users, demonstrates this perfectly. 25 million !!! This means that half, or even more than half of users, use bitcoin through a centralized service.

Do you forget side-chain, off-chain and tokenization?

"Do not increase the block, because this leads to centralization. "
and
"Go to another sidechain, or tokens on another blockchain, where there will be millions of transactions, which means there will be large blocks, but this will not be centralization." Facepalm