Cuz ya don’t need the lightning technology when the main chain can handle the appropriate amount of transactions.
Discussion
Lightning can handle far more transactions than BSV and BCH on L1 so I don’t think this is take based on facts
Lightning doesn’t handle those transactions on chain either.
“You don’t need lightning when the main chain can handle that amount of transactions”
Big blocks can’t handle that amount of transactions, unless you’re suggesting we make blocks even bigger than BSV/BCH to try to compete with BTC L2?
Yes
Right now BSV has about 60 nodes because it’s expensive af to store that data. So you’re fine with less than that?
It has 60 node’s because none wants to store that data.
Why would you think bitcoin nodes would drop that low?
Seriously? Come on.
I still want you to explain how we’re gonna fix this 
4GB+ blocks will be more expensive to maintain node infrastructure than worrying about $7 in fees
It’s not really an issue now & will be less as time goes on.
Maybe in 50 years when a GB is equal to todays Kb in cost we can talk
You’re being a cheap ass when the world is perfectly ok with this
https://gamerant.com/pc-games-file-size-hd-space-biggest-huge/
It is not only about file size. BSV needs massive amounts of compute, memory, and bandwidth with nodes whose resources are well outside the boundaries of what commodity hardware and consumer bandwidth can provide. They are heavily centralized and mostly owned, directly or indirectly by a literal bag of scum named Calvin.
Gimme a break you really think we won’t flip the bill?
Bitcoin is a network of less than 20k known reachable nodes and it would be a significantly lower number if server class hardware and first world comms infrastructure was required.
Aren’t most of the nodes in first world data centers n e ways?
That would only drive home the need for a leaner blockchain wouldn’t it?
Nope
What you’re proposing would only move more nodes to data centers so if you’re acknowledging this is already the case why would we want to worsen this symptom?
Did I ever say that was a problem?
Is it a problem now?
Yep, there are already thousands of nodes in DCs. So yes this would make this problem worse.
Well I don’t see n e one trying to fix that? Right?
The only way to fix is running your own node. I run 2. I wouldn’t be running any if I had 365TB of storage a year to pay for
Kew me to. For a decade now.
Most don’t & won’t that’s the point.
We’re not making the chain data any smaller are we?
So what’s the real answer? Wait 10 more years & see?
File size that is being argued here is highly regarded nostr:note1dcgk2uy3tavp0eg9azrj27lw2xvv78r55rz9zt82kuep9xzz7elqyuthtg
Not comparable. You can delete the game when you’re done with it. And in the end, nobody will need 20TB of games. If we make blocks much larger, full nodes will need 20TB of undeletable data
Precisely..
nostr:note1dcgk2uy3tavp0eg9azrj27lw2xvv78r55rz9zt82kuep9xzz7elqyuthtg
I know more people in real life that have many multi tb ssd full of video games in their rigs then I know people running nodes that have this issue.
20 tb to much run a pruned node
A 36 TB NAS costs $1200 so you’ll need about 10 of those a year to do what you’re proposing here 🤣
You found a single refurbished hard drive, and that’s not including the NAS hardware needed to properly store this much data at the bandwidth needed here.
Not quite. The largest game you list here is 250gb.. if the blocks were 4GB+ (larger than the block size of BSV) this would take 60 blocks to take up that much storage space or 6 hours. In a single day you’ll use 1 TB of space. In a single year you’ll use 365 TB. And at 4GB blocks you aren’t beating lightning on fees or speed. You also aren’t bringing any hash on board because nobody wants to use your shitcoin poorly thought out hard fork.