Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on January 04, 2022, 07:58:46 AM

Even if we assume your math is correct, what in 5 years' time when that isn't enough? Increase the block size more? What about in 10 years' time when that isn't enough? Increase it again? What about in 20 year's time? Increase it endlessly? Increases in block size are necessary, which is why we already increased them back in 2017 with SegWit, but they aren't a solution on their own and you can't just increase them indefinitely or you will end up like the failure that is BSV.

segwits 'increase in blocksize' did not yield an increase in transaction count, because the cludgy code of "weight" did not cause a more efficiency of transaction data to match the 'block size' bloat increase.
yes block MB is now 1.3mb instead of 1mb but the average transaction count has not 1.3x
what actually happened is people made more 'weighty' scripts/signatures by doing multisig.

segwit made multisig more popular which then needed taproot to counter the segwit effect(if people decide to shift from segwit to taproot when they transact)

however devs did agree that 4mb block bloat was no longer a harm to the nodes.. so pretending that blocksize of full utility 4mb would harm nodes is a dead propaganda to push.. it was debunked 4 years ago when devs allowed upto 4mb saying its safe.

but while on the subject thank you for admitting that increases are needed(straight after arguing why they shouldnt be done(facepalm)). but these increases should not in the form of allowing more bloat in MB sizes, but instead allowing more transaction utility of that new size. which can be achieved by removing the cludgy "weight" code and just having a full transaction utility of upto 4mb. instead of being beholden to the 1mb base plus 3mb weight cludgy mis-count of data

as for the future of 20 years time.. well if you now want to revert back to kodaks 1999 fear of digital storage of photo's using the floppy disk arguments of 1.44mb storage space never being sustainable for 35 pictures of high resolution.. well we are in 2021 now and guess what. we have moved passed 1.44mb floppies. we are no in the realms of 1tb microxd cards the size of a fingernail.
yes high-res photos of 2021 are more then 2mb per photo. something kodak cried would never be possible to cope with on old storage theory.

so take that as a lesson when you want to talk about "but what about in 20 years", the answer is, storage and bandwidth is moving forward faster than bitcoins scaling is.
2010 had users on an average 0.5mb broadband. now average speeds are not 5mb/s(10x) nor 10mb/s(20x) but 50mb/s(100x)
100x internet scaling in 10 years and 1,000,000 portable storage scaling in 20 years

we are no longer in dial-up era we are in fibre optic era.
so please dont use old outdated and debunks rhetoric propaganda. stop using old scripts from the altnet support group. think outside of the box if you truly love being outside the block.. and think for yourself.

i know you want to hinder bitcoin scaling to give LN a niche need, using propaganda of bitcoin flaws to sell LN as a utopian place people should move across to.. but that niche option is not there due to technical hardware limitations of physics on bitcoin. its a political/commercial decision by devs that like altnets.

just accept it.
sure advertise LN as a separate network for the things that it can do differently than bitcoin. highlighting the differences. but dont even dare try to FUD propagandise that bitcoin is broke to try advertising LN as bitcoin2.0