> Bitcoin right now has the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem You're only considering the bandwidth to monitor/receive transaction confirmations in real-time and not t

> Bitcoin right now has the bandwidth of a 28.8 modem You're only considering the bandwidth to monitor/receive transaction confirmations in real-time and not the bandwidth to download the transaction history, which cumulatively grows over time, forever. It's already at more than half a terabyte, which you certainly can't download over a 28.8 modem. > At one point single transactions cost more than the space to store the entire chain. The problem has never been about space, it has always been about bandwidth. > Normal people don't even need to sync with the main chain if they don't want to. Sure, but you need to put some bounds on how fast the main chain can grow to ensure that anyone (even the people, say, in El Salvador or the Central African Republic, both poor countries where Bitcoin is legal tender) can verify it if they want to. > The actual numbers of bandwidth and storage of this argument are so far removed from reality I can't believe people still say stuff like this. It's pure propaganda. Or perhaps you are privileged and you don't even notice, and therefore you are incapable of empathizing with others who are less privileged than you (in this specific instance)? In any case, even if you were to ignore this, increasing the block size even by a factor of 100 would not fundamentally solve the problem. It would still be a pathetically low transaction rate compared to Lightning and it would also certainly constrain Bitcoin usage as it was intended (as a trustless currency/asset). That's not to say I would be against increasing the block size by a reasonably small factor, but I'm certainly not in a position to judge whether this should be done right now. I think it'd be better to ask the people in those countries, or even poorer ones who might one day make Bitcoin legal tender as well...