If all of that is true then how come Bitcoin doesn't have a larger block size?

The following 2017 youtube video says the lightning network hubs will charge money similar to banks (about 6.5 minutes into the video):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

1. Is it true and may the banks start owning hubs?

2. The same video later-on says the blockchain was limited in size to create a monopoly: is it true or will a larger blockchain produce a problem such as more processing power and therefore even longer transaction time/fees?

Same as trying to have Bitcoins created on planet Earth1 transferred to Bitcoins on planet Earth2:

Since they are 2 independent entities (2 groups), the Bitcoins from Earth1 is converted to US dollars then from US dollars is converted to Earth2 Bitcoins and stored in a wallet on Earth2. An intermediate conversion to US dollars is pointless therefore the only limiting factor is that Earth1 Bitcoins were not created on Earth2....but you would have the same level of security as when every single computer on Earth gets automatic windows software update every day from a THRUST worthy address such as Microsoft.com (instead of NorthKorea.com). Otherwise all of Earth's computers would presently be infected by viruses but they are not.

The only security breach that I see is when picking random 20,000 (or more) miners into 1 group is to make sure their addresses (IP addresses) are not fake and instead are all coming from one corrupt source such as North Korea....?

From what I've read about "block chains", how about changing the Bitcoin protocol to the following:

1. Placing maybe every 10,000 to 20,000 miners into individual groups (each group acts like a bank) with their own address so that groups could communicate with each other (similar to two banks transferring money between each other).

2. A limited number of wallets say 10 million customers are assigned to each group, each time all groups are full of customers then a new group is created (with a new address).

3. Each group has their own block chain different from another group's block chain (yet still secure because say 20,000 miners all have the same block chain) so that when a transfer occurs either within the same group or between only two groups then each block chain would only need to retain the wallets of its own customers.

Say there are 10,000 groups and only 1  (1 block chain) to 2 groups ( and 2 block chains) are used per transaction then this would free the other groups and therefore provide the faster transfer time and smaller transfer fees that everyone is looking for.

The downside would be that a wallet is stored in a block chain of each group which is say 20,000 miners but this would be sufficiently secure same as storing your money in one bank instead of all the banks in the world.

1. So when it takes 20 minutes to produce one transaction, this 20 minutes has nothing to do with the number of people trying to produce a transaction at the same time? Example: What if only one person vs 1 thousand people was trying to do a transaction at the same time?

Is only high demand causing the long transaction time or the high price of a bitcoin or both? And would adding more miners (supply) increase or decrease the transaction time?

Can the protocol be changed? What if changing the protocol solves the above 3 problems which are limiting bitcoin as a currency for regular transactions?

Can/should Bitcoin software be reconfigured to limit the # of miners to reduce the transaction wait time and transaction fees or does it already do that?

In the news the carbon footprint of such high network usage is too high so the above would help reduce that?


Say limit it to 100,000 miners per wallet? Then the transaction time & fee & carbon footprint would have a limit?

Well then can Bitcoin remain at 50k in the future even with a large number of bitcoin users or will it go down in price with time?
Because now they say a small transfer of say $200 can cost around $30 in transaction fee...so that can't be useful if Bitcoin remains at 50k in the future.

From what I've read, Bitcoin now charges high transaction fee and long transaction wait time so it can't presently be used:

a) for a conversion from Bitcoin to cash?
or b) purchases using Bitcoin?

If you put the key in a bank safety deposit box...then maybe as long as the Executor of the Will isn't crooked or doesn't also have access to the wallet.....

It makes sense if online banks should hold a large portion of your wallet.

1. They give you interest on your money (which they can give to others for loans).
2. Can protect & give you insurance if the wallet/password is hacked = all your life savings gone.
3. Wallets are already charging fees, so small fees for #1&2 above is OK.
4. Other online Wallets don't give the above, and thus you lose all your hard earned money.
5. In case of fire or damage your hardware wallet (computer/phone/hard drive/USB stick/ back up) can all be lost.
6. Option: If you forget your password/key, an Online Bank can help you recover your password/key and therefore all your hard earned money.

Also Bitcoin.org is telling business they are not required to reimburse consumers for some transactions like credit cards force them to do, well that's a downside for the rest of us (the buyers). So again a similar credit card (or something of the sort) with a small transaction/insurance fee would be convenient.....