The post mentions that the satellites can only broadcast the blockchain, so does that mean it's not possible to use it for transactions? How does the company i

The post mentions that the satellites can only broadcast the blockchain, so does that mean it's not possible to use it for transactions? How does the company intend to make money off of these satellites? > the value of a digital currency and payment system that is not controlled by governments, banks, or companies, but instead where each user directly owns their money. In theory it sounds good, but the reality seems to be that most users just use an exchange to store their coins with KYC norms. And if bitcoin adoption increases among non-tech users, it's likely that they would just use a hosted wallet. On a related note, can someone comment on my understanding of the block size debate : small blockers (Core devs + Blockstream) want to build the Lightning network, which is currently a white paper and promises low transaction fees + micropayments. The big blockers argue that this introduces centralization and accuse companies like Blockstream of wanting to turn monetize these Lightning hubs and potentially introduce KYC norms. The big blockers want to scale Bitcoin by increasing the blocksize, which is lucrative for the miners (a large portion of mining takes place in China). This solution will work for a while, but it's impossible to reach VISA level transaction rates with big blocks alone. Some points the big blockers make is that it's in line with Satoshi's vision and also maintains the p2p nature of Bitcoin where exchanges and KYC norms play a lesser role. So this seems like a fight for the monetary spoils more than anything else : big blocks mean the miners mint money and small blocks mean side chain technologies become lucrative (which favours Blockstream and the core devs). Whether bitcoin uses small blocks + segwit + side chains or uses big blocks (Bcash), it's hard to maintain the p2p + pseudonymous nature of transactions if it goes mainstream. KYC norms seem inevitable, whether at exchanges, hosted wallets, or to make a legal purchase using bitcoins. So to me, what people really seem to want is an anonymous (crypto)currency that can be used to make purchases over the internet without any KYC norms. That used to be the primary use case for Bitcoin and probably still is. So, long term, what's the point of Bitcoin/Bcash if it's not truly p2p, where coins are held in hosted wallets and where KYC norms are necessary. I just don't see how Bitcoin can replace or even complement the traditional currencies. Would love to hear comments on this rant. (I am not on any side of the size debate, just a curious bystander)