It makes that calculation given assumptions that existed back then. So it doesn't consider splicing, channel factories, or CISA, nor any other future changes that address scaling.
This is like the BSVers who think that Bitcoin changes ended when Satoshi wrote the whitepaper
Many others have done calculations since then. The numbers still don't add up, even assuming we'll have a CISA softfork (I hope we do, but this is not guaranteed by any means).
You've been scammed friend.
Dude, even bcash block size is not enough. Go join CSW if you want terabyte blocks. Ridiculous.
I don't want bigger blocks. Who gave you that idea? 🤔
Just telling you that self-custodial Lightning will not solve Bitcoin scaling.
Check the notes.
You want bigger blocks indirectly through DC, even though it solves nothing
DC is not bigger blocks
It is an additional op code (OP_DRIVECHAIN), the block size stays the same.
Read the BIP
Yes, but the data ends up in other chain(s), which is effectively the same downside, which ultimately means that it can't be relied upon as a solution to anything
The whole point of scaling is to move the data off the main chain
I don't see how having data in a sidechain is different than having data in lightning node databases
