Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 11:40:42 AM

Quote from: npuath on Today at 12:15:31 AM

The "other kind" of reorgs, where blocks get orphaned because two or more blocks are mined almost at the same time, has as far as I can tell not occurred since 2019.

That link is very out of date. The most recent fork I am aware of is at block 772,981, which was around 2 weeks ago. There was a competing block with the hash 0000000000000000000682990a0dae862b48e0451d619938215dd47ed9560200 mined by Foundry. Usually we see on average around one such event a month.

Indeed it is. I got it from a fellow forum user in another thread. It looks live, but it hasn't been updated since 2020.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 11:40:42 AM

Quote from: npuath on Today at 12:15:31 AM

I think BSV has a max block size of 128 MB

It's actually 4 GB.

Right you are again, I lazily relied on english WP.

With gigabyte block sizes, I understand and agree completely.

Appearantly this topic was created accidently, and it's title isn't really matching the first posts. My interpretation of the OP has been that, as the total chain size (not individual block sizes) grows ever larger, prohibitive hard- and netware costs may cause a (further, potentially massive) decline of full nodes.

With current bitcoin block sizes, I still think hybrid pruning (as per my posts above) might be part of a solution to that potential problem.