For OP.
Your reasoning is correct and based on common sense. If all technologies are improving,then it is necessary and possible to increase the block. There is no reason to freeze the block size.
The problem is that the Bitcoin community is mostly zombified. They are sincerely convinced that the block cannot be increased. They have no real reason, but they are convinced of it.
Therefore, they will generate refutations for any proposal to increase the block. They generate such arguments against increasing at a high rate. All of them without proof, just look plausible.
If you take the time to prove one claim untenable, another will immediately appear. And the number of such pseudo-true statements is not limited.
For example, "spam from miners". This problem is not there, it is just made up. This problem was not present when the blocks were half-empty, this problem is not present when the blocks became full. And there is no evidence of the existence of "spam from miners".
When you doubt the credibility of this argument, there will be arguments in the form of "lack of processor power, RAM, block propagation speed over the network, etc." I emphasize that all these statements are without evidence. And you will have to look for evidence that they are untenable. If you expose these statements, the following will appear: like "increasing the block increases censorship", etc.
How to break through this swamp is not understood.
p/s/ why was the Khaos77 post deleted?
Your reasoning is correct and based on common sense. If all technologies are improving,then it is necessary and possible to increase the block. There is no reason to freeze the block size.
The problem is that the Bitcoin community is mostly zombified. They are sincerely convinced that the block cannot be increased. They have no real reason, but they are convinced of it.
Therefore, they will generate refutations for any proposal to increase the block. They generate such arguments against increasing at a high rate. All of them without proof, just look plausible.
If you take the time to prove one claim untenable, another will immediately appear. And the number of such pseudo-true statements is not limited.
For example, "spam from miners". This problem is not there, it is just made up. This problem was not present when the blocks were half-empty, this problem is not present when the blocks became full. And there is no evidence of the existence of "spam from miners".
When you doubt the credibility of this argument, there will be arguments in the form of "lack of processor power, RAM, block propagation speed over the network, etc." I emphasize that all these statements are without evidence. And you will have to look for evidence that they are untenable. If you expose these statements, the following will appear: like "increasing the block increases censorship", etc.
How to break through this swamp is not understood.
p/s/ why was the Khaos77 post deleted?
Your idea to “scale” Bitcoin is to increase transaction-throughput despite the technical costs on the network? OK. Block size increases, simpy centralizes validators. That’s not “scaling”. None of it is “pseudo-statements”. You are on a disinformation campaign, sir.
BUT, newbies. Listen to him, and learn the HARD WAY. That’s how I learned.
