⭐ Merited by vapourminer (1)
Why didn't you calculate this for 10 MB blocks? After all, we are talking about this increase now.
For increase to 10 MB, I'll right as well vote in favor, and maybe a little higher than that. I have clarified before that I'm not strictly against anything beyond 4 MB, I'm just not of the opinion that it's going to solve the problem; it's only delaying it. Can somebody show me some data or a paper to support this?
It's simple. When a miner mines a block, they are the first to have verified that block; it happens during mining to check for the validity of the transactions. When they broadcast their block, the rest of the miners must firstly verify it before mining on top. The bigger the block size, the more time it takes to verify the block, and hence, the more the time the lucky miner gains to continuing mining alone. And it's not just verification, it's propagation as well. If you we had 1 GB of blocks, as in BSV, you could perhaps imagine this better. During the time that gigabyte is traveling across the network and is in the process of verification, the lucky miner gains invaluable time advantage.
Nobody said we should straight up go to 1GB blocks. Indeed this would introduce issues like affecting the fee market very negatively and also inviting a lot of spam to be on chain, let alone that nodes would be hard to host.
And yes, with 1 GB blocks propagation would be hard. My upload speed with an ADSL connection that's still very common in my country, would have me taking longer than 10 minutes to download a block.
But honestly for bitcoin nobody talks about blocks that large. Even back in the day of the "blocksize wars" the proposed solutions were much more conservative.
These were the main proposals back then, circa 2015:
Given that so many years have passed, today there would be even less issues in terms of networking infrastructure or hardware to support these changes.