Quote from: franky1 on March 25, 2024, 11:41:41 AM

Quote from: ABCbits on March 25, 2024, 09:21:15 AM

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on March 23, 2024, 11:57:03 PM

So any solution that tells to just increase blocksize will inevitably turn into a network of one or a few large servers controlled by an entity that could be blocked or physically raided by law enforcement.

That's why block size should be increased based on specific measurement (e.g. cost of hardware and cost of running) , rather than choosing arbitrary number (just like what BSV did).

the cost of running is negligible

if the idiot brigade telling you stories that the cost of a $50 hard drive is too high, listen to them when they then say they prefer no one transacting unless they pay $50 for one transaction.. and listen hard and good at their hypocrisy and tyranny of not wanting people to use bitcoin unless they pay stupid high fee for one transaction but call that one transaction high fee 'acceptable cost', but stupidly say the same amount is too high to protect decades of transactions
if you agree that $50 is ok for 1tx but $50 is not ok for 20 years of millions of tx.. then you need to sort your math out and not just blindly recite silly things

increase based on measurements.. but that of block fill over time.. not dev politics of deciding costs
core DEVS should not pretend to be economists , pretending they care about the price/cost when all history and examples of their economic decisions show they prefer to miscount things, discount the wrong things, premiumise te wrong things, and do it all to promote another network people should use.

core devs need to get out of governing the network and get out of sponsoring other network migrations.. and instead concentrate on bitcoin features that benefit bitcoiners not their fiat backed sponsors that want to become the middlemen controller of crypto

I somewhat disagree about increasing based on how much block is filled, considering previous Ordinals spam. But otherwise i actually support bigger block size.

I don't think any sane Bitcoiner would agree to pay $50 for as TX fee and i already run full node on more expensive hardware. Besides, even $100+ used computer like this one (4 core, 16GB) with extra $50 probably can handle at least 5x of current BTC block size/weight while still can be used for other light tasks.

Quote from: DooMAD on March 25, 2024, 12:02:21 PM

Quote from: ABCbits on March 25, 2024, 09:21:15 AM

block size should be increased based on specific measurement (e.g. cost of hardware and cost of running) , rather than choosing arbitrary number (just like what BSV did).

Not your call. Block size will only be altered if/when those securing the chain collectively agree to bear that cost. No formula or measurement will make that decision for them. The impetus will come from them and not the other way around.

The scaling debate proved pretty conclusively that people talking about what it "should" be are just making noise. The only thing that matters is what non-mining nodes will offer to relay and what miners support. And that will be determined by the code people are choosing to run.

If code doesn't exist to support your view or you aren't actively running that code, you're achieving nothing. Everything else is just a somewhat worthless opinion.

I never state i make any call either. And i never say about implementing formula which determine maximum block size either.