Quote from: Wind_FURY on Today at 12:19:32 PM

Quote from: franky1 on November 28, 2022, 08:11:40 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 28, 2022, 05:12:58 AM

Let's talk about how things generally are. Would it be wrong to say that an increase in block size = require more resources = centralizing?

The question can be answered simply, not your usual confusing posts designed to trick and gaslight everyone into questioning themselves. Because if bigger blocks was actually needed, then why didn't everyone start using BCash, the coin of which you supported, and which you also claimed to be "Bitcoin"?

Plus big blockers always avoid answering the question, "does ANYONE believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space"?

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 01:37:30 PM

ok lets actually answer your question

before 2013 there was actually a CODE/Berkeley database issue where 0.5mb was the block limit.. it was only found when user activity requiring more tx per block reached that limit..

so lets use that as an old implied limit..

removing that implied limit of 0.5mb(berkeley bug) and moving moving to 1mb and then in 2017 to ~ 1.4mb cause more centralisation..

did it cause more centralisation of full nodes.. where there is only 1 central point of failure....? .. answer is NOPE!!
ok got it?

hmm lets see how many full noders existed 2013 vs 2017 vs 2022

oh look there are more full nodes now than in 2013

and again
even the econo-political devs of core deem 4mb as not a network centraliser/threat

just removing the cludgy econo-political code that restrains the tx data to 1.4mb average.. to allow full 4mb a block full utility of more tx count and actually return to clean actual byte count. wont break the network

i did not nor ever have support bch you absolute social drama queens of ignorance..

i supported progressing bitcoin to allow more transactions. on the main net of bitcoin and not via some other crappy side network people want to push people onto and away from bitcoin

where progress is of more transactions not shammy scammy tricks of saying:
here have more size but not more tx count
have more data space but we will multiply the bytes to make the seem bigger but still restrict the tx count
here have some new tx format thats "cheaper because we made legacy more premium

my support was actually giving more tx count per block on bitcoin mainnet where its not filled with shoddy code that has manipulated peoples views and aimed to get people off the network

..
if you want to find someone that is promoting centralising the blockchain.. speak to your girlfriends who are trying to get more people to prune(not have decentralised blockchain on their nodes while pretending they are full nodes.. because THEIR game is to centralise the blockchain by having less copies of the blockchain distributed.. not me

look at who is advocating and supporting the use of pruning and promoting it to people that stipulate they want to be full nodes