Quote from: alani123 on Today at 06:26:43 PM

Quote from: cryptosize on Today at 03:09:59 PM

Quote from: Synchronice on Today at 12:18:23 PM

But to be honest, after thinking for a while, I think we have another problem besides block size and they are miners. Mining is becoming way centralized, pools are collecting all the transaction fees and people are willing to join pools that don't share transaction fees. These pools are one of the biggest pools who can flood mempool with their resources and gain more profit. They can flood it easily because they confirm the blocks and fees go back to their pockets but increased block size should make it a little bit hard for them to do.

Actually it's the opposite.

If 4GB blocks become the norm (because that's what BSV folks envision), then FTTH would become mandatory. ADSL is still the most common (baseline) connection worldwide, hence why 1MB block size makes sense as a "baseline".

Hell, I would argue that the few remaining, hyper-competitive pools would be concentrated into a single geographical spot (maybe USA?) and they wouldn't even use FTTH.

They would just use LAN/Ethernet connections (1 Gbps symmetric) to sync with each other! Kinda like a LAN party if you will. BTC would turn from a permissionless network to permissioned (some pools already demand KYC).

You really like this scenario? This is not very different compared to fiat/central banking (i.e. ECB TARGET2 ledger).

I really wonder if big block fanatics are sincere good guys/idealists or government trojan horses/feds trying to hijack BTC, even though they pretend to preach "global adoption". Roll Eyes

I sincerely hope we won't have to find out...

I wonder why we have to keep conflating the discussion with BSV and BCH.
Already I've seen some BSV fans here (to clarify, I'm not one of them) that voiced their opinion saying that they're against a block capacity increase for BTC.
Obviously their reasoning is that they believe they can do it bigger and better... But why should that concern us?
Is the goal to improve BTC or not? Because obviously BSV as a ton of faults, and just because CSW is acting the way he does, it doesn't mean that bitcoin would have to fall in the same traps when implementing an improvement.

At this point I find these arguments quite counterproductive to be honest.
Bitcoin's development is supported by many scientists, if we all agreed that a slight block capacity increase is warranted, they'd find a way to implement it well enough so there are no fundamental issues.

A slight capacity increase is not going to solve scaling issues (assuming mass adoption is the endgame) and still risks splitting the network in half.

People need to find more ingenious solutions (soft forks like SegWit).

Who knows, maybe if AI advances enough, it could do BTC R&D by itself (assuming people won't find a good enough solution).

It won't be easy to reach a consensus regarding the "ideal" block size. Who determines what's ideal? For what purpose?

Some people want BTC to be the be-all and end-all cryptocurrency and no alts to exist (such as LTC, DOGE, XMR).

I get it, it sounds noble, but I'm afraid this is not going to happen. It hasn't happened to Linux distros AFAIK (tons of debates about the ideal distro, libraries etc.)

There's a reason so many Linux distros exist. Same with cryptocurrencies.

ps: A BTC hard fork will happen only when a real threat arises (such as mainstream quantum computing).