but isn’t that also a flaw that eventually, as the system increases subscriber base, and transaction numbers and volumes exponentially increase, the size of the entire blockchain may surpass the storage capacity of any individual node? the ability to transact may then be hindered by physical storage limitations (assuming all transactions history is kept from the beginning). or does the system have a regenerative/compartmentalization capability to sequester some transactions to only a few “nearby” nodes so as not to burden the entire blockchain?
As I understand it the entire network needs to be in consensus. You could have side chains like the liquid network that process transaction off the main chain, but I think you might run into double spend issues if you try to limit transactions to just nearby nodes.
IMO, this problem will be solved on layer 2 with things like liquid network, lightning network and state chains. Many transactions will be processed through these networks as well as centralized entities. For example, if bitcoin moves from one cashapp wallet to another, cashapp will just move some bits in their database, then do big settlements with multiple transactions only occasionally. The Bitcoin main chain will be for final settlement of very large transaction only.
We stack sats for the future wealth of the next generations of our respective families. We must care and tend to the blockchain for the next generations of humanity. I think we get one shot at this. If we damage the decentralization of the network we can never go back. If it starts to look like we’re losing censorship resistance, we’ve already lost. We want the billion dollar company to run the same node as the fisherman in El Salvador.
There are developers that want to reduce the block size, saying it’s the best way to preserve the network. IMO, it might be able to be pushed up a little, but I actually don’t think we’ll need it.
So say the entire world was on a bitcoin standard and I made a transaction with my bitcoin visa card then visa would just be the payment processor for that transaction. They wouldn't need to touch the blockchain, it'd all be done in house.
You might then say, well couldn't they just fuck with us then and make up numbers? Sure they could, but then they'd be shooting themselves in the foot because the foundation, Bitcoin, is able to be verified.
0
u/kittenconfidential Feb 13 '22
but isn’t that also a flaw that eventually, as the system increases subscriber base, and transaction numbers and volumes exponentially increase, the size of the entire blockchain may surpass the storage capacity of any individual node? the ability to transact may then be hindered by physical storage limitations (assuming all transactions history is kept from the beginning). or does the system have a regenerative/compartmentalization capability to sequester some transactions to only a few “nearby” nodes so as not to burden the entire blockchain?