If the block size doesn't also raise the processing requirement above what is available at the price point then of course not.

If you don't know what I mean, go get a 10 year old computer and see how long it takes.

Spinning disks are already pretty much impractical because you will be waiting at least several weeks if not months for IBD. I found you can squeeze it with 100gb of SSD set up using a caching tool, but it still was almost a week to sync.

If you already have access to a fully synced node, copying its data directory to a spinning disk might be viable, but the amount of read/write required for the database, my intuition is that it's just not practical with a ~550Gb chain, it will still struggle to sync just new blocks as they come in.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Naw this is a perfect hypothetical world where it’s free and easy to have a full Bitcoin node. I’m really just seeing if everyone agrees that these "shitcoins" do have utility we would like, but they’re still shitcoins because they don’t have the decentralization of Bitcoin. But if they did, then a fast and private currency that governments cannot stop is exactly what I’d want.

If they don't have the decentralisation the core utility is missing. It's not cash if it's dependent on one or a small number of organisations. It's not cash if it can't be anonymous (bitcoin can be anonymous because of UTXO accounting).