I don't understand. Why is everyone so particular about *maintaining* security?
A fair amount of people consider it the next store of value that will replace gold. It's generally considered something that will belong in the next societies due to its innovation; if you don't care, even to an excessive degree
which I disagree that that's how I seemed, how will you convince me that it, indeed, has future?
The resources needed to attack Bitcoin is astronomical at it's current stage, to the point where it is ridiculous to be attacking Bitcoin, and we still have block rewards.
My point is that they aren't astronomical or won't be in the long term. If the security, let's say, drops by 50% in between two halvings, it quickly becomes far easier to be attacked.
There is simply no reason for people to still be running a full node, unless they intend to run a full node without any tangible benefits to themselves.
It is hard to pin down the valid way for Bitcoin to work properly mainly because each user sees it differently. If you ask me, I find it more than just a benefit to run a node. If you want to own Bitcoins, the keys aren't enough. You have to somehow verify that you transacted. Having someone telling me that I did defends its purpose.
Again, the way Bitcoin
should work from the user's side is meant differently between its users.
Technological improvement has made manufacturing cheaper, and in a larger storage density. It simply doesn't make sense for us to not be keeping up with it as well. 1MB as a limit was arbitrarily defined, and it stuck for so long before Segwit got activated. Even the SW block sizes are underestimating the true capacity of the network.
I agree that it was an arbitrary choice. It's advisable to state that if we changed it, the new block size wouldn't be arbitrarily chosen, but calculated from much more factors than Satoshi did twelve years ago.