So you're about to risk ruining a half-trillion project (at the time or writing this), opening up the Pandora box of a debate that broke Bitcoin in half already once (and in multiple small pieces), completely ignoring the mountainous history of second layers, breaking backwards-compatibility, prioritizing the short-term in a project whose success comes from long-term conservatism... And all that to... Quadruple the on-chain transactions?
Are we both talking about the trillion project that was under
terrorist attack and faced extinction when confronted by some jpg meme?
Also, how is increasing the blocksize breaking backward compatibility?
Full nodes operators needing an extra terabyte disk is the last concern of mine if such thing was ever going to happen.
But what is really the concern then?
Cause we see, the only real concern was that for nearly a month it was so damn expensive to make a tx on the blockchain that many users ended up saying it's better not to use Bitcoin for a while and switch to some shitcoin. If hundreds of pages of people screaming about high fees is not a concern bigger than the price of 1TB of storage, then I must have a completely different view of what "global adoption" and "usage" mean and also I probably lack the imagination needed how this global adoption will happen with under 500k tx a day. Or 0.15% of the population of the US.
By "we", you mean who?
This community here that has posted the graph on Bitcoin adoption vs others a million times on this forum!
Can you explain the $20.00 tx reference and how it connects to widespread penetration of smartphones, TV, and other electronic goods?
Miners protect the network because they get the block reward, when there will be no block reward they will rely on fees, right now, we had an instance where the fees from the transactions were the same as the block reward, the median fee was around 20$.
So to get the same level of protection for the network in the future as we have no, that will have to be at least the average, 24/7, forever!