Hacker News Reader

> so an infinitely large blockchain is not sustainable.

This is a bit misleading. With 1MB blocks a 2TB drive holds around 40 years. So put that out a century and we're still talking nearly nothing.

Even with 32MB blocks it's not exactly a gigantic commitment, needing a drive every few years.

Having a nice way to checkpoint utxo is good to get people bootstrapped but it's not like block chain size is a serious issue.

View on HN

People who think the problem with large blocks is disk space or internet speed are the worst tbh

Without getting into the 'vim vs emacs' type debate rolling through the bitcoin community, why?

Why is storage not 'the problem'?

I am not trying to kick a hornets nest here, I am genuinly trying to understand.

Cause a 2TB drive is so cheap? People wanting to run a full node can easily afford it. But if BTC stays with small blocks and becomes a settlement layer, nobody will even care about running a node in the first place. Why would I want to run a node to validate payments between corporations?

Increasing blocks increases the load on nodes somewhat, but it keeps the system much more peer to peer, as transaction fees won't end up as high.

There's no obvious easy solution, but making the network expensive and congested is certainly not a real solution.

The problems with large blocks are not disk space.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com