You could buy Steam games years ago because Bitcoin volume was low.
Just try some math: How large would blocks need to be to handle just 50% of Visa's current US transaction rate?
Just try some math: How large would blocks need to be to handle just 50% of Visa's current US transaction rate?
A 3TB drive is $39 on Amazon right now. So maybe 13c a day in storage costs to run half of visa’s US transactions.
Not raising Bitcoin’s block size has got to be THE most insane technical decision in modern history.
Your calculations are off. It's closer to 20GB per day: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=150%2C000%2C000+*+0.5+...
>A 3TB drive is $39 on Amazon right now. So maybe 13c a day in storage costs to run half of visa’s US transactions.
Redoing the calculations with the correct figures comes to 24.4 cents per day. That might not seem a lot, but that's also $89/year, which makes it a non-negligible expense for anyone wanting to run a full node. Not to mention, the data would have to be stored for eternity, so someone wanting to start a full node 5 years from now will need to invest almost $500 just to get started. That would put someone wanting to run a full bitcoin node into /r/datahoarder territory.
Why on earth would a non-miner run a full node just to observe other people's transactions? Satoshi addressed this all the way back in 2009 in the whitepaper itself. Consumers (non-miners) would just download transactions they care about and run truncated observer nodes, and $89/yr isn't even that much money for a "full" observer (non-miner) node if you care about being a datahoarder. Killing bitcoin as a functioning currency because some people think Satoshi was wrong is mind-numbing. Of course, when your paycheck depends on not understanding something...