Quote from: nutildah on Today at 04:09:51 AM

Quote from: ETFbitcoin on December 30, 2023, 10:17:25 AM

BSV is poor example of big block size. It's doomed to failed since it's associated with faketoshi, don't care about cost/difficulty of running full node[1] where many decide to drop support[2] and even implement ~~confiscation~~ stealing mechanism[4].

All the Faketoshi stuff aside, its blockchain is approaching 10 terabytes and is supported by less than 100 nodes. One mining pool dominates with 54% of the hash rate. There couldn't be a clearer picture of why large blockchains leads to centralization. You can say, "ah but nobody wants to run a coin led by Faketoshi," and you'd be right, but even if he stepped out of the picture completely, I sincerely doubt things would be any different.

as ETFbitcoin said using bsv as an example is a poor attempt..
first bsv has never been a viable real world use coin.. so users/nodes/mining were centralised from the start even before the data bloat

if you had an inbred offspring with disabilities. and then that offspring had an inbred offspring with further disabilities
you would then use the inbred malformaties to decide the future of your lineage. rather then learn from it and stop inbreding to cause disabled offspring. and instead fix the problem to have health future lineage to carry on your legacy

secondly the reason BSV is not a good example because its only 5 years old with 10tb meaning 2tb a year
no one on the entire planet is proposing blocks that result in 2tb a year. no discussion over the last 14 years have ever proposed bitcoin leap to 2tb a year growth
that strawman of "gigabyte blocks asap" is the empty argument of dev politics empty rebuttle to say "2gb a year LEAPS wont help so lets not even discuss SCALING at smaller adjustment"

the only reason dev politics want everyone to leave bitcoin and use subnetworkds is for middle men fee's that the dev sponsors will earn to get ROI for sponsoring devs to create gateways to subnetworks

the funny thing is becasue subnetworks have no blockchain nor network wide auditing/policy. those subnetworks could have designed their systems in a multitude of ways that fit a niche utility and still communicate with bitcoin.. they actually had alot more freedome to develop anything. yet the sponsored, and arm twisted bitcoin to change to promote a buggy subnetwork. rather then make a subnetwork that meets its niche promise to promote itself

these buggy subnetworks are not the solution because they are buggy from the start and failed to fix issues over the last 6 years

lastly i do find it funny how in one sentence you pretend to be against bloat.. but in other sentences/posts you dont want the nonsense junk bloat to stop, and instead you want bitcoiners to stop being bitcoiners..

you prefer the junk to run on bitcoiner and for bitcoiners to become subnetworkers

you are not making any comments to preserve bitcoins utility. you sound like a subnetwork salesman that doesnt want bitcoin to be bitcoin

and dont bother even replying with the empty statement of "censorship" until you have done your research of core accepted buzzwords like
"drop" "eviction" "prune" "reject" and realise core does have code to decide whats fit for the network. and core did relax the rules to allow the junk exploit but now refuse to fix their error..