Quote from: ranochigo on August 09, 2021, 12:21:01 PM

Unfortunately, that isn't what majority of the community wants. There is nothing wrong with increasing block size, but if you were to increase to that extent, then no one except a selected few can run a node because they are prohibitively expensive. Miners can only mine if they're fast enough, which would mean further centralization as they need to achieve the lowest latency possible to reduce orphans. Complete centralization of Bitcoin defeats the very purpose of it, and putting the control of it to a selected few only serves to discourage people from using it.

My apologies, I think you missed the point I was trying to make and it's probably because I did a spelling mistake. Here is the correction..

Quote

I'd rather have 10 persons running a full node and sharing the cost than have thousands of people using some third party services to make their transactions.

So what I was trying to say is 10 persons sharing the same computer is more decentralized than thousands of people using the same server. I think the majority of the community would agree with that.

Quote from: ranochigo on August 09, 2021, 12:21:01 PM

I briefly read through the topic again. Are you still proposing a complicated dynamic block size as opposed to a simple and linear block size increase?

I'm still not convinced, what is your vision?

Quote from: franky1 on August 09, 2021, 03:30:41 PM

so yes fee's will be cheaper per transaction.. but the total the pool gets will be more

I agree with you but I also think that the size of the block chain should automatically adjust to the need of its users.