Since i didn't find word "size", "block size" and "hard fork", i'll ask these question to @franky1
1. Do you think increasing block size limit is the only option for scaling (since you're not fan of SegWit, Taproot and LN)?
2. How should Bitcoin community determine block size limit? Arbitrary number (4MB, 32MB, etc.)? Based on hardware/internet growth? Based on cost of running full node (e.g. maximum $500 for initial setup and $25/month for operational cost)?
1. there are many ways to increase transaction counts.
a. reducing the tx_signops_limit. dis-incentivises big corps from filling blocks with just a few hundred transactions
Wouldn't it prevent custodial service from creating batch transaction (where batch transaction use less block size compared with creating a transaction for each user request)?
c. also changing the fee formulae to make 'spam transactions (those that spend multiple times a day/every block, just to bloat blocks) more expensive will cut down the amount of needless transactions, giving more room to genuine spenders
Since coin-age priority was never part of Bitcoin protocol,
1. Do you think it's possible to enforce it on Bitcoin protocol? Currently miner/pool can mine empty block and choose any transaction.
2. Most miner/pool will be hesitant to support this change.
a raspberry pi and a 4tb is within your $500 spend limit
as is a $400 desktop with a 4tb hard drive upgrade
as for your monthly internet cost..
without even considering if an average american uses bitcoin.. just to get good internet for real life entertainment the average american spends
$61 on the internet.. so i think you have set a very low bar for monthly costs of $25..
heck it costs an average american $25/month just to have their lights, tv and computer on (normal life stuff)
but converting YOUR $25 low bar to UK£ .. yes i can get more then 60mbs for £20 internet with no monthly cap
so lets say people upgrade their computer every 6 years
meaning ~600gb a year. is about 11mb per block..
The number is just example and was picked arbitrary, you could ignore it. If bitcoin community agree to increase block size based on hardware/internet growth and operational cost, IMO it's likely the number is smaller and ignore internet cost since it's part of monthly expenses (unless they consider user who has slow/expensive internet).
as for what the community wanted in 2017 was a 2mb base atleast. i would now say thats about 4mb base block as a acceptable way to go. and that can be achieved by just removing the 'weight' miscalculating cludgy code and just having the maxblocksize as 4mb straight and open for full transaction utility. along with a new fee formulae and sigoplimit reduction to avoid bloaty spam.
I see, but we know it's more than removing the "weight". Since it require hard fork, it'll force many people to upgrade their software and another activation signal which will take some time (IMO at least 6 months is required) and attract another controversy (such as cutting backward compatibility).
as for things like taproot and segwit.
though segwit promised more transactions and cheaper fee's segwit has had 4 years and by the looks of the transaction count charts and the block bloat charts.. the efficiency of transactions per Xbytes have not flourished as promised.
To measure SegWit/Taproot success, looking at transaction count/block isn't the only factor you should look. But i don't bother press the topic since other member already do.