Then the more for the need for the users to run their own nodes, and validate. The ability to run full nodes should not be taken away because a small minority in the commumity want bigger blocks, faster transactions, or lower fees.
1. which requires MORE transaction count on the BTC network.
to allow more people to want and use bitcoin moreI'm confused.
But the people already want to use Bitcoin more.
people already use bitcoin via exchanges, webwallet, phone apps, lite wallets.
but you yourself were saying
"Then the more for the need for the
users to run their own nodes, and validate."
but if your reducing the blocksize, LESS users will use bitcoin regular
those irregular users wont want to be full nodes because they are not using it regular enough
and again if you want more users. you need more transactions.
users playing with other networks and only broadcasting to the btc ntwork once a month, are not people that will be full nodes
users broadcasting to the btc ntwork once day atleast are the people that will be full nodes
deburdening the btc network of utility (smaller blocks, less transactions) doesnt help promote the btc network
deburdening the btc network of utility (increased fee's, costing$1+ per use) doesnt help promote the btc network
infact those 'once a month broadcasters' wont even be regular users, but 'factories' so dont expect promoting other networks to also promote users to be full nodes
complaining that running a full node. based on hardware that can be spread over 4 years meaning the daily cost is under $1
but then promoting fee wars, based on fee/reward equilibrium of $33 a tx (12.5*$8k=$100k... $100k/3000tx=$33)
i find it shocking how people presume hundreds of thousands of people would pay $33 a tx but wouldnt pay under $1 a say for a PC that they can also use for many things while using bitcoin. (hint people already do spend under $1 a day on their pc)