1. no one wants to or can just blindly accept the opinion of data from others, its always best to run tests on data yourself
You seemed to have missed the part (on two occasions actually), where I said I had written an actual simulation and that once I had seen enough of the data to realize you were out to lunch, I shut it down.
i have said for years dont get spoonfed data
dont just take things on face value
dont just read something on a forum/reddit and take it for granted.
do your own tests/research/scenarios/validation.
this is why DAYS AGO i said ill give dino a few months to have his mind blowing experience of seeing the bigger picture of the real depths of bitcoin rather than the 1d overview he has displayed over the last few months.
yet apparently many want me to spoonfeed them everything. and then debunk it before even examining it.. (making it pointless to spoonfeed)
so if you want to learn run your own tests for your own peace of mind.
anyway this topic has meandered soo far off track.
but i still await -ck explain his biased 'only 70ms' timing of all the combined propagation, validation, parts (outside of hashing).. as i want to see how if its just 70ms he and his fellow friends can justify their "2mb is bad" rhetoric
PS. to pre-empt short sightedness
my "minutes" is not to be taken literally as in for all blocks... but has been the case in the past where certain 'tasks' used to be done certain ways without efficiencies. and more seconds/milliseconds can be shaved off too even now
but on average the block (non-hashing task) is more than just 70ms..
but i would like to know where -ck can defend a bigger blocks are bad stance if non-hashing tasks are 'just 70ms)
im done with this topic.
if anyone else is unsure about the meandered 'hashtime' stuff.. just run your own scenarios