Quote from: GGUL on January 13, 2021, 01:28:22 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 13, 2021, 06:28:41 AM

Your idea to “scale” Bitcoin is to increase transaction-throughput DESPITE the technical costs on the network?

Again you lie, again you create another strange statement. I do not know anyone on the forum who would like to increase the block despite the technical costs. Why do you invent it?

There is a concept of estimating technical costs. According to my calculations, if the owner of a full node makes an average of one transaction per month, then it is more profitable to keep a full node with a 10mb block and pay cents in the form of a transaction fee than to keep a full node with a 1MB block and pay 5-10$ fee per transaction. Therefore, the statement that when the block is increased, the user's costs will necessarily increase is already incorrect.

Quote

With 10MB blocks, running a node would increase exponentially. The node operator would stop running the node eventually, centralizing the network. That’s not “scaling”. Scaling is to increase transaction-throughput without sacrificing decentralization.

Quote

If we look at your statement above for pseudo-valid statements:

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 12, 2021, 09:11:50 AM

OP, it isn't that simple. Research the effects of increasing the block size cap on network latency, network security, and how the costs in the network transfers from the miners to the nodes.

"on network latency" - unsubstantiated. If you just take the calculator and take the block size of 10mb, you will see that there is no problem with this. But you didn't make any calculations, you don't need to know the truth. You need to refute the possibility of increasing the block by any effort.

"network security" - unsubstantiated.
"costs in the network transfers from the miners to the nodes" - unsubstantiated.

And you say:None of it is “pseudo-statements”.

Quote

OK. Block size increases, simply centralizes validators. That’s not “scaling”.

I've been waiting for this.

Pseudo-arguments such as "disk size, processor power, RAM, internet speed, etc." come to an end.
Then there is the main argument of "the increasing centralization (reduction of decentralization)".

So, for newbies. (since there is a tradition to address newbies.). When the arguments "increasing centralization (decreasing decentralization)" appear, then the constructive discussion ends. Because these statements "increasing centralization (decreasing decentralization)" are usually presented as self-sufficient. For some reason, it is considered that it is not necessary to provide any evidence.

If my opponent wanted to confirm his words with evidence, then he should have provided:
1) How it measures the level of centralization (decentralization).
2) What is the level of centralization (decentralization) now, at 1mb block.
3) What is the level of centralization (decentralization) will be if we increase the block, for example, to 10MB.

You can’t bend the Laws of Physics. Block propagation slows down as block size grows.