50 bucks is some poor countries is a lot of money, and need more node runners, the more the merrier. What happens if black rock sets 200.000 nodes and we have too little?
Discussion
You just sent BCH shit coiner with the mythical poor person in Africa argument against LN.
Social arguments always hinge on hypothetical bullshit.
No it's the opposite and it's about math not social, small blocks it's cheaper to make a node making tx on chain more expensive and an incentive to use LN.
Did you read me argue against small blocks at all in this thread? Even one time?
And notice how you shifted your argument?
Do you know why you shifted it? Because you started from a social argument, which will keep you shifting until you fall to a fully logical one. Storage space is one of the most deflationary technologies we have it and will keep getting cheaper. Unlike ASICs that have ONE PURPOSE, SSDs have tens of thousands of uses.
In 10 years a 50TB drive will likely cost less than a steak and a potato. The argument is dumb. The poverty stricken person first has almost no BTC anyway and already does NOT and likely NEVER WILL run a node.
But this argument is iron clad, "Bitcoin is a protocol, it has a specified means of change, that means is consensus. Run a node/mine and participate in consensus. If you don't get your way in a BIP, STFU and move along or FORK OFF away from us".
There is no response to that other than fallacies and pleadings and other shitcoiner bullshit. We have the fortified high ground, why the fuck should we go down into the valley and expose weak flanks?
nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev see above, I'd love your thoughts on this, since I took some of it (a single word "social") from you.
They could do that now if they wanted. It wouldn't matter because they'd have a massive network of only their nodes running a fork of bitcoin. As long as we're running our nodes for our bitcoin transactions, it doesn't matter.
The question then is if they would be able to have the timechain with more hashing power or not. If yes it will be centralized and without freedom and all development would leave, at least good and open source development. They will probably try something like that, in partnership with some big miners. I still think that promoting more node runners is essentially a good thing and it must be as cheapest as possible, because besides hardware there's also internet GB costs. In Europe it's possible to run a node on a 4G router, but not everywhere.
Could you explain why 50 buck node cost increase could be more worrying than transaction cost? Who in said countries would run a node on a chain they can't afford to use?
I get the importance but the balance of priorities don't make sense to me. I'd think if poorer people were running nodes more than rich we might already have bigger blocks.