You're talking about the cost of future tx thruput and comparing it to today's storage prices. How can you not see what's wrong with that? >But bigger blocks i

You're talking about the cost of future tx thruput and comparing it to today's storage prices. How can you not see what's wrong with that? >But bigger blocks is definitely not that solution. How easy it is to make a claim without any proof. >Originally with the 1MB block, there were quite a lot of full bitcoin nodes running on raspberry PI's under peoples desks in places with really shitty internet. Segwit kinda-sorta actually increased the block size from 1MB to up to 4MB. 16% of Malaysia gets internet slower than 256kbps. Running a bitcoin node today takes up ~20% of a connections total bandwidth in these places. Increase the block size to 20MB, and it will not be possible to run a node in some areas of Malaysia, because 20MB/10min is too fast for the connection. Heh, even Segwit proponents don't understand Segwit. Please stop lying about 4MB blocks, it just wastes all of our time. Segwit arbitrarily considers the "witness" portion of the TX to be 25% of its real size in bytes (they define a "block weight" accounting measure that distorts the true storage cost). This means blocks can only be 4MB if the block is entirely witness data, which never happens in the real world. In practice, segwit will give you 1.7-2MB blocks. There is no efficiency increase (in terms of tx thruput per unit of computation, etc) with Segwit at all, there is only the increased tx thruput caused by bigger blocks (how ironic). >Running a bitcoin node today takes up ~20% of a connections total bandwidth in these places. Increase the block size to 20MB, and it will not be possible to run a node in some areas of Malaysia, because 20MB/10min is too fast for the connection. You use a misleading definition of bitcoin nodes that has been used to poison the discussion. A non-mining node has no role in securing the network, except for SPV wallets (lite wallets). Mining nodes have the full power to choose which transactions are uptaken into the blockchain (merkle tree), so non-mining nodes are a garbage metric to use to judge 'centralization'. It doesn't matter if everyone and their dog has a copy of the blockchain on their raspberry pi, if they're not mining they're not securing the network, period. The original bitcoin whitepaper written by Satoshi is quite clear - when they refer to nodes, they mean miners. As you can see, the entire manufactured block size debate is built on misinformation and propaganda. How sad that the bitcoin community fell apart as soon as Satoshi disappeared. >At 20MB of transactions per 10 minutes it's also possible that the diskIO on a gen-1 Raspberry PI using a cheap SD card might not be enough to scan and validate every transaction in an incoming block. Remember that a node might have to scan very far back in the blockchain to find the last time an unspent output was interacted with. I'm not sure how big a block has to be before that IO overhead starts eliminating entry-level hardware. Entirely irrelevant. Your average cryptocurrency user does not need to validate the entire blockchain. They only need to ensure their own TX have made it into the chain, a role fulfilled by SPV wallets like electrum. Again, Satoshi himself said this.