3 ms·
> Had the block-size been increased, Bitcoin would be much more useful as a means of exchange (more transactions would be processed, and they would be cheaper).
by ntoskrnl 4y ago
> Had the block-size been increased, Bitcoin would be much more useful as a means of exchange (more transactions would be processed, and they would be cheaper).
Of course the flipside of this is that it would become very expensive to run a node. Bitcoin's blockchain is ~400 GB after 13 years. BCH has a 32x larger blocksize cap, so we can extrapolate that if anyone actually used that fork, it would grow a 12 TB blockchain over that same period. As a result running a node would become expensive and the network would become much less decentralized (the very thing people are complaining about in this thread!)
- etherael 4y agoThis would be true if the number being 32x'd was actually high, but that is not true. It was 1 megabyte. 32 megabytes over ten minutes is not even 512kbps. Other chains that process much more throughput, as well as BCH itself, has been benchmarked on very modest hardware pushing that boundary and higher. Simple fact of the matter is that the whole justification for the permanent 1mb limit was an outright indefensible lie, pushed on idiots, and supported by censorship. Nothing more, and nothing less.