They scale if you don't keep all transaction history back to inception. Anything longer than 30days isn't needed.
Beef the size, shrink the time, scrap the unneeded excess.
Discussion
How is your node supposed to find your transactions from last year? Or verify that someone else's old coins you received aren't double spent?
You're constrained to Bitcoin. I'm talking a fresh protocol.
Drive Chains are that new protocol. Bitcoin is too well established, and the non-Bitcoin crypto space is too filled with 💩🪙's to establish anything new and legitimate. It just can't happen.
It’s already verified it. It’s just trusting itself
New nodes still need to sync. Multi-TB per year will get quite unwieldy, especially as we run into physical limits to data transfer and processing speeds when we're decades into this.
Besides, you need a way to keep track of UTXOs to verify txs. Imagine when we're into the multi-deca-billions of UTXOs to track and verify. No go.
No you don't need to track UTXO's because UTXO's are stupid. Them and blockchain are the constraint of the whole system.
The distributed ledger is all that matters. You don't need to know "who sent what". You only need to know "who owns what". That's it. The ledger.
The logic is simple: Has key? Has balance? Send approved.
What if we embed another DLT into Bitcoin as a L2? Such as a Merkel tree balance proof protocol like MINA? Bitcoin can host the top-level proof of balance, and wallets will hold branch proofs.
This is kind of the idea pushed even farther with MimbleWimble on things like Grin, Beam, and LitcoinMWEB
Only ~18500 nodes accessible worldwide. I run 3 of those, and 2 of them are pruned. 99% of people will never run their own node, which to me largely invalidates the argument against larger block sizes. I would rather have larger blocks and smaller fees. If I truly want to be my own bank, I would have no problem adding hard drives to a server.
It matters how fast your node communicates with all other nodes globally. Consensus on the network takes time. Not to mention the storage problem.
Interestingly that's less than accessible Monero nodes.
Bigger blocks: Run LTC or BCH nodes
Private bigger blocks: Run XMR node
I suspect people running XMR nodes care more about privacy than the average Bitcoiner. Sad, but probably true.
So many maxis have never even downloaded Bitcoin core.
You need a node to maximise privacy and for
CPU mining.
I'd say that incentives are better aligned for Monero node operators than for Bitcoin.
Amd Monero is 99% price insensitive cypherpunks. While Bitcoin has 1% cypherpunks.
Considering privacy is the whole point of xmr, I would expect you're right about that.
Not to mention that when a miner broadcasts a block they have an advantage over all other miners if they find a hash with a high enough difficulty.
They broadcast that new block and are already working on the next block before the rest of the world knows. That's why you see alot of pools win multiple blocks in a row.
Exactly nostr:npub180x9vv4yuagf2w3qzmuertvv46ccee6n0wp0yh3zcz7nhyqrmzuqzjmehq At the crux, you're arguing more volume, lower fees. To achieve the same income as less volume, higher fees.
Higher throughput. That benefits the network and users. Efficiency.