- snip -
we might see periods of (super-)exponential blockchain growth that might be problematic if a significant part of the established infrastructure isn't prepared to cope with it.
Under the current operation of bitcoin, the blockcain won't grow by more than 52.6 gigabytes per year. That means it would take 38 years to fill a 2 terabyte drive. I'm confident that typical storage devices will exceed 2 terabytes by orders of magnitude in far less than 38 years. As such, "exponential blockchain growth" won't be "problematic" in the next half-century unless the protocol is modified to allow exponentially larger blocks.
- snip -
We should not think of Satoshi as a god, who is free from any fallacy
I never said anything about anybody being a "god". As far as I'm concerned Satoshi made several mistakes in the design and programming of bitcoin. You are setting up a strawman argument that does not impress me.
I only pointed out that the concept of "only big companies will be mining" was an intended design feature of bitcoin and not a "problem" that needs to be fixed. This isn't just due to blocksize. The market forces designed into the bitcoin protocol are set up such that cheaper access to certain resources (electricity, cooling, equipment housing, maintenance services, efficient hashing equipment) result in higher profit margins. Those higher profit margins allow larger companies with access to those resources to increase the mining difficulty enough to drive smaller operations without access to the cheap resources out of business. This naturally leads to a consolidation in the mining of bitcoins until the vast majority of mining is handled by only a few big companies.
If you don't like this, then you'll want to consider looking into (or designing) altcoins, because this is in the nature of bitcoin's design. It isn't going to change, you'll never get enough consensus to redesign bitcoin's proof-of-work system in a way that eliminates these market forces.
It is generally desirable to keep the blockchain size as small as possible to keep decentralization high.
There is nothing about bitcoin's current blockchain size (or its size in the future under the current protocol) that would get in the way of decentralization.
Describing a large blockchain as a "design feature" or "intended behavior" is wrong
I never said anything about "a large blockchain" being a design feature or intended behavior. Once again you are setting up a strawman argument that does not impress me.
I said that consolidation in mining is a design feature and intended behavior. This is not wrong.
because it's not the goal of Bitcoin to max-out storage resources
Where did I say anything about "max-out storage resources"? I'm pretty sure that I pointed out that bitcoin is NOT maxing out storage resources. I pointed out that the blockchain is growing MUCH slower than the ridiculous predictions of the video posted in the OP. Please take your strawman argument and go away.
a large blockchain is (currently) simply a necessity for Bitcoin to work securely.
I guess that all depends on what you consider to be "large". As far as I'm concerned, any blockchain that grows slower than the rate of typical storage devices is not "large".
