What does it take to run a full node?

[Wind_FURY]

windfury you are wrong again. and i laugh when you just shout insults but never back it up with data or actual facts

stop getting your opinions from doomad.. he is not a source of information in the slightest

the participants of the NY agreement aligned with the core devs actually
they were the economic few but are part of the main decision makers

do some research. i know you like things spoon fed to you but do some research for once

the DCG funded blockstream devs who have merge/maintainer status in cores github (DCG funded the devs involved with segwit)

heck even check out the DCG portfolio. notice that lightning is listed as their portfolio

do you know who the CEO of DCG is .. barry silbery
do you know who headed the NY agreement.. yep barry silbert. with his sister company like coinbase and other exchanges in his portfolio spreading the word to other exchanges and pools that if they dont follow suit the pools blocks will be rejects and exchanges wont see their block rewards or subsequent spends. thus it was a blackmail.

DO YOUR RESEARCH

if you cant be bothered to check the blockchain for the flag data, if you cant be bothered to check the code linked to the flags that show the mandatory crap.. atleast realise who was involved in the NY agreement

you do realise doomads rhetoric he teaches you make you look more like a idiot by repeating his hymn sheets right..

try for once some independent research. not of social media of buddy opinions that match your own. but of actual data and time events of the period.
give it a try

Newbies, that's the kind of disinformation that troll uses. He simply types anything and pretend that they're "facts", and then tell those who do actually tell the truth "to do their research". That's called gaslighting. I won't debate him anymore because it's not good for my mental health. I'm only telling everyone, to be careful or learn the HARD WAY. If you believe Roger Ver is telling the truth, OK, that's up to you. Be on that side, the side of the Flat-Earthers of Bitcoin.

[1714745027]

1714745027

[1714745027]

1714745027

[1714745027]

1714745027

[1714745027]

1714745027

[franky1]

all windfury can do is insult and play victim

i have linked him and his girlfriends everything below before multiple times over a couple years. which is why now instead of re-linking him again. i just tell him to go research.. because he knows the information is out there, i know its out there he just needs to go look at it himself and realise it.

i say go research so he can independently verify it

so one more time. here goes
so fact DCG funded blockstream
https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b  oh look blockstream

DCG ceo is barry silbert
https://www.linkedin.com/in/barrysilbert - oh look founder and CEO

barry done the NY agreement
https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

does the mandatory flags exist
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

were the mandatory flags deployed
https://i.redd.it/7putyzz1flv01.png

yep
blue line is the NYA flag threat which reached its threshold to stark orphaning/rejecting blocks that dont flag the red segwit activation..

if you look at the near perfect diagonal red line at end of july (before activation) you will see that is a unnatural event caused before activation triggered the activation (perfect 100% is unnatural in a diverse system unless someone has removed/rejected/orphaned those not voting)

now dont go playing the fool by playing victim of some mental ilness to excuse yourself. actually stop listing to the playlist of your buddy/girlfriend and instead for once do some research . it only took me 10 minutes via google searches to collate the information

now why would you waste years avoiding doing the research and blindly follow your girlsfriends words that cannot be backed up by actual data.

yes the block flags exist in the blockchain of immutable data that has now 5 years of confirms depth security to ensure that the flags have not been edited.

if you wish to say blockchain data is wrong and false. then you have no idea how bitcoin works

please just do some research instead of wasting time in denial and social group "kumbaya"

as for facts of this topic.
multiple TB hard drives exist
wireless and cabled internet of over 5,25,50 and 100mb/s+ exist

and as for the myth that segwit increased the transaction count norm.. it didnt
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/n-transactions-per-block.png?timespan=7years&h=405&w=720

[Wind_FURY]

all windfury can do is insult and play victim

- Snip -

Ser, I am neither making an insult, because I, and other people, know I'm telling the truth, AND nor playing the victim because, I and many people, know the facts.

Newbies, that's the kind of gaslighting franky1 is very good in. Plus I have noticed this very recently, read his trust rating and read who made it and what was being said. He tricked many newbies like me before, that should not happen again.

[franky1]

meanwhile

the newbies and long term PC users will actually go to their retailer and see computers with multi TB hard drives. sign up to a telecomms internet provider and see that are getting more then 56k internet.. and more like 5-500mb/s internet

and realise, yea windfury has self admitted mental health issues

i still have no logical reason why a guy like him, and his girlfriends waste so much time on a story that been debunked even by the devs that first promoted it.
there is soo much information out there people can easily see and verify.
i can speculate a few polyamorous reasons. but thats speculation

and to all others that sound like windfury
its 2022 and you can get a 1TB storage and it does not need not some large server datacenter to store it.

it is actually smaller then the width of your finger or a postage stamp
research: 1tb micro-sd

yep they exist
the great thing about information. is you can actually find it if you look and verify it using real world exploration

[Wind_FURY]

meanwhile

- Snip -

It doesn't change the fact that what was posted in your trust rating by achow and gmaxwell are not true. Plus it also doesn't change the fact that with bigger blocks, besides making it harder to scale the network up, it also increases/widens some attack vectors against the network for bad actors to exploit. We actually had anti-Core developers who proposed unlimited block sizes, leaving block size regulation to the miners. Does anyone remember Bitcoin Unlimited. Haha.

[oldkoin]

It doesn't change the fact that what was posted in your trust rating by achow and gmaxwell are not true. Plus it also doesn't change the fact that with bigger blocks, besides making it harder to scale the network up, it also increases/widens some attack vectors against the network for bad actors to exploit. We actually had anti-Core developers who proposed unlimited block sizes, leaving block size regulation to the miners. Does anyone remember Bitcoin Unlimited. Haha.

“Bigger blocks make it harder to scale the network”

Therefore, we will freeze the block size - which, in fact, CANCELS the network scaling.

Iron logic.

[franky1]

what you do not realise is that in the era of 2018 when gmax cried on the trust rating.

is that you were part of the cries of one topic and the cries of your girlfriend were part of another topic. yet you do not want to explain why you were crying and wanting gmax to kiss you better and make you happy, by wanting gmax to argue with me and assert his authority

the two topics where gmax first got emotionally triggered... the first topic concerned core centralising the network
the other trigger(involving you) was about segwit utility being low where the supposed 100% activation in 2017, yet under 11% adoption a year later

ill start with the debate your girlfriend was in. as that was first trigger in late september 2018
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5035144.msg46029392#msg46029392

windfurys girlfriend(Doomad(windfurys favoured source of mindset)) was open to thinking outside the core box. asking about decentralising the code base.

Just responding to this particular fork of discussion now,

I know this is probably the last argument most people want to hear, but is this not a case where more independent implementations would result in less risk?

They would create more risk. I don't think there is any reason to doubt that this is an objective fact which has been borne out by the history.

within days. he got recruited into the mindset that centralisation of code is good

I know this is probably the last argument most people want to hear, but is this not a case where more independent implementations would result in less risk?

No. This is nonsense that has been pushed by those actively trying to co-opt the network  

Back to the main purpose of the thread, though.  Yes, there are definitely some issues with multiple implementations if it's done in the wrong way.  It seems there's no simple answer to this one.  Aside from the things gmaxwell and achow101 mentioned, I suspect one of the primary flaws with multiple implementations is that much of the code would simply be copied from other implementations anyway.  It wouldn't necessarily ensure catching any present faults, even if people were taking the effort to run two different clients to compare results.  If they've inadvertently duplicated the bug, it won't make any difference.  Much like how any of the altcoins that may have been affected didn't spot duplicate inputs either.

heck. even gmax was having a tearful session arguing with cobra about the centralisation
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5035144.msg46080594#msg46080594

. then you see even cobra starts toeing the line of less implementations and sites hosting release are better
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5037612.msg46211591#msg46211591

so while windfurys girlfriend now says "its franky and only franky thinking this way"
she forgets her own mindset before she and others leaped into the centralised core fanclub of single implementation rules all

and then when i explain in a different topic that segwit was not being used as much as promoted. he got super upset

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5051985.msg47306700#msg47306700

fact was segwit was not being used much in 2018,
i was highlighting that instead of using stats of P2WPKH
they falsely included P2SH as a "segwit count" even though p2SH was a count of legacy based multisig too.
and not all inputs or outputs of P2WPKH or P2SH or psWsh were segwit inputs or outputs

EG
1legacy -> 3legacymultisig
                 3segwitSH
                 1legacy
is not a 100% segwit (though they counted it as such)
its a 33% segwit

EG
3legacymultisig -> 3legacymultisig
                            1legacy
is not a 100% segwit (though they counted it as such)
its a 0% segwit

i even highlighed how there were over all utxo, a low count of segwit
i even narrowed it down to a conservative window of april 2016-october 2018 and showed the low segwit use count (p2Wsh and p2Wpkh)
but gmax wanted the p2sh included to muffle the results and he called me the mis-informer

pfft

gmax got all riled up and felt like his efforts were being attacked by anyone suggesting to decentralise core and have other implementations aswell as having the efforts that segwit was not being used questioned too. totally made his head blow

he didnt like it because he was co-founder of a company thats main income was an investment to get segwit activated and used by majority
and it done so by having core as the defacto repo everyone should use.
..

in recent years he has settled down a bit and realised that his opposition to me was less about what i was saying. but more about how i was saying it.. my thing is how i inform people where im just frank and to the point without ass-kissery..

even things like debates as far back as 2016 about anyone-can spend he backed down on .. after all the segwit wallet allowing p2wsh and p2wpkh was not released until months after segwit activation because yep i was right there was a flaw if they released the wallet signing feature too early..(before majority nodes upgraded to not treat them as anyone-can-spend)  as i warned

but hey.. windfury will just reply without explanation or reference. and just insult and play victim that he is going insane due to me,

many devs now see and admit to the centralisation of core and the bad utility of the mandatory activation policy that was used...
.. so 4-5 years after all the crying. they seemed to have realised things . unlike the fangirls(winfury and clan) who are stuck in outdated scripts from many years ago now being debunked even by their dev idols

[Wind_FURY]

It doesn't change the fact that what was posted in your trust rating by achow and gmaxwell are not true. Plus it also doesn't change the fact that with bigger blocks, besides making it harder to scale the network up, it also increases/widens some attack vectors against the network for bad actors to exploit. We actually had anti-Core developers who proposed unlimited block sizes, leaving block size regulation to the miners. Does anyone remember Bitcoin Unlimited. Haha.

“Bigger blocks make it harder to scale the network”

Therefore, we will freeze the block size - which, in fact, CANCELS the network scaling.

Iron logic.

You mention "network scaling". I believe you didn't truly review your thoughts. Increasing the block size will require more resources from each validating node, it will force some nodes to drop out, and also cause the network to centralize. If you're talking about something else, what I'm talking about is real network scaling. To increase the functionality of the network, WITHOUT sacrificing decentralization, and to let the network continue to expand/scale out/increase in validating node count. Isn't the whole point of Bitcoin censorship-resistance?

-Snip-

No one is crying, franky1.

[franky1]

windfury you are crying. your using insults and saying im hurting your mental health

maybe try to stop the social diatribe. and instead take a break and then do some research to straighten out your mental status of right from wrong. emphasis without seeking a buddy to tell you how to think. just do proper research independent from anyone whispering in your ear

so some more facts that you can check(without a buddy whispers or hand holding)
the first commercially released 1TB hard drive was released in 2007

even bitcoin core does not want to support 2007 era computers
it wants at bare minimum windows 7 which was not even a thing in 2007

so if you want to plead that bitcoin will centralise if 15 year old computers are not allowed to operate on the network..
..please realise its 2022 not 2007

as for your cries. you in 2018 went crying to gmax and others with your rambles of not understanding something and you pleaded to gmax to kiss your ass and make you feel better and to call someone else a troll.

funny part is years later.. TODAY your debate still fell flat. even now. the amount of segwit utility is not even at the 90% utility that you thought you would see if there was 90% threshold of user flagging to want segwit.. its not even at the 40% of your debate
it was 10% at your debate and now its at 18m utxo bech + 1m utxo of p2wsh of 83m utxo = 19m of 83m = 22.9%

yep 4 years after your cries pleading to get your idol cal me a bad man that misinformed you.. your debate at that time still holds no substance today only 23%


next time. come back with a topic of substance that includes some actual statistics and numbers from hard data and actual sources. and not just point to social drama to rederail a topic then cry victim when the person involved in your crap social drama bites back and corrects you YET AGAIN

its 2022. you have had many years now to learn about bitcoin, do some research on statistics and do some proper real world view of the modern world of 2022

[oldkoin]

Increasing the block size will require more resources from each validating node, it will force some nodes to drop out, and also cause the network to centralize.

This is an incorrect statement. To be blunt, you are lying.
Not every block increase results in a loss of decentralization.
As evidence, we can refer to your favorite Segwit.
Since 2017, after the adoption, the real physical block size has increased, but no one talks about the loss of decentralization. Everyone understands perfectly well that the network will not even notice an increase in the block by the estimated 1.7 times.

Computer bought for the same price:
1. in 2008 copes with a 1mb block
2. in 2017 copes with a block of 2-4 mb.
3. in 2022 will easily cope with a block of 4-8mb.

You can reasonably increase the block without necessarily increasing costs. Nobody wants Bitcoin to break.
Above, we have already given a bunch of information about how much technology has grown. But you choose to ignore them.
And you continue to get moldy arguments from many years ago from the dusty attic.

I'm talking about is REAL network scaling. To increase the functionality of the network.

It seems to me that you are not quite accurate in using the word "real".
If we had increased the block size by 2-4 times in 2017, then perhaps we would now have 2-4 times increase in the number of transactions. And that would definitely be real scaling.
Instead, you are suggesting that we all hope for some other imaginary "real scaling". Which in practice can be just an unsuccessful experiment.

I settled more comfortably on the couch. I want to hear from you a cheerful report on how much progress you have achieved in your "real scaling" over the 5 years since 2017.

[Wind_FURY]

-Snip-

Relax, franky1, no one is crying.

Increasing the block size will require more resources from each validating node, it will force some nodes to drop out, and also cause the network to centralize.

This is an incorrect statement. To be blunt, you are lying.
Not every block increase results in a loss of decentralization.

Maybe not, but in general, bigger blocks = require more resources = centralizing the network. It's simply physics, ser.

Plus since you accuse me of "lying", why not come out and use your real account. Who are you? It's just a friendly debate, there's no such need for sock puppetry.

I'm talking about is REAL network scaling. To increase the functionality of the network.

It seems to me that you are not quite accurate in using the word "real".

If we had increased the block size by 2-4 times in 2017, then perhaps we would now have 2-4 times increase in the number of transactions. And that would definitely be real scaling.

Instead, you are suggesting that we all hope for some other imaginary "real scaling". Which in practice can be just an unsuccessful experiment.

I settled more comfortably on the couch. I want to hear from you a cheerful report on how much progress you have achieved in your "real scaling" over the 5 years since 2017.

OK, do you believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space?

[franky1]

Maybe not, but in general, bigger blocks = require more resources = centralizing the network. It's simply physics, ser.
..
OK, do you believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space?

your even using the buzzwords of certain scripters. you are too obvious that you cant think independently.

the reason forks dont have a wide community is because they are altcoins..
aka crapcoins.. its that simple

if you want to pretend hardware constraints are the physics reasons to not scale bitcoin.. guess what. you are breaking physics by living in a 2007-2015 mindset, even though reality is that its 2022

wake up its 2022. get out of your coma dream and start living in 2022. use some real world evidence. not the written social dogma you follow

a hard drive to cope with scaling up bitcoin costs less over the life span of a computer. than the total tx fee's of regular use of bitcoin in that same timeframe..
tx fee's are a more costly constraint
and whats causing fee's to be premium.. not scaling up bitcoin

people not being able to just transact daily due to lack of scaling is why people dont daily use full nodes. because whats the point keeping a node open if your not going to use bitcoin daily

its like why keep the car engine on when you are not driving it
its like why keep a house light on in a house you dont use every day

if people can use it every day without congestion or a large congestion charge  they would use bitcoin MORE meaning expanding the community

its called economics. learn it

bitcoin is not restrained due to physics.
bitcoin is restrained due to the politics of economics, trying to promote other networks and services as the "must use" things

[franky1]

This is an incorrect statement. To be blunt, you are lying.
Not every block increase results in a loss of decentralization.

Maybe not, but in general, bigger blocks = require more resources = centralizing the network. It's simply physics, ser.

You also need to consider cost of the resource (such as storage in $/TB or internet speed in $/GB) usually going down over time. Although waiting time for IBD (initial block download) probably only become worse, especially if block size limit is increased and block remain mostly full.

maths has already been done
full node users are normally people that want to use bitcoin regularly and support the network

if you want to be a full noder. then the costs/day of a hard drive and internet are cheaper than the average tx of a next block confirm

so again to emphasise it. the tx fee is higher then "resource cost"

..
now here is the thing
just to use bitcoin. you do not NEED to be a full noder. you can simply get a seedkey. and start "stacking sats" onto your key by just copy and pasting an address for people/services to pay into.. where all you need is a keyboard
(in the most simplest use of bitcoin investing)
and just use a lite wallet when its time to get out. for those that just want to use bitcoin for long term investments

the more you WANT to be involved in bitcoin and use bitcoin. then you can use better software. but again..
the more you want to use bitcoin you find the fee's of that more frequent use that you prefer to protect with better levels of software.. its still the fee's that cost you more. not the hardware required to run it
however those few playing the resource crying game.. they NEED to full node because their subnet payment system that is not bitcoin but a bridged network with pegged other units of measure used as payment amounts.. requires them to have a 24/7 active node or employ a watchtower service to watch constantly of the bitcoin network. due to a flaw in their subnet that allows their subnetwork counterparty to steal from them if they are not being watched.
when it comes back to converting their subnetwork value back to bitcoins

that cost of resource is not due to bitcoin but due to the security flaw of their subnet.
yes they could employ a service to watch. but thats extra cost. more than the resource required to run a full node. plus watch towers are more middle men that have access to broadcast signed payments to move funds to whomever employed them. so more security risk by other parties involved in their subnetwork
..
however.. sticking with bitcoin.. not using the silly subnetworks
in bitcoin when funds are confirmed. you can switch off your computer and go to bed and not worry.
i have coins from years ago that i dont ned to regular check on. as i know they are secure.

so the cost for the subnetwork users is based on the lack of security and flaws of their altnet NEEDING them to be actively watching even if they are not actively using

[Wind_FURY]

Maybe not, but in general, bigger blocks = require more resources = centralizing the network. It's simply physics, ser.
..
OK, do you believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space?

-Snip-

I'll ask again, does ANYONE believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space?

This is an incorrect statement. To be blunt, you are lying.
Not every block increase results in a loss of decentralization.

Maybe not, but in general, bigger blocks = require more resources = centralizing the network. It's simply physics, ser.

You also need to consider cost of the resource (such as storage in $/TB or internet speed in $/GB) usually going down over time. Although waiting time for IBD (initial block download) probably only become worse, especially if block size limit is increased and block remain mostly full.

The trolls are speaking with situational premises, and OK, but I can also speak about other situational premises too, like not every user has the same access to cheap hardware, cheap bandwidth, and so increasing these requirements would be centralizing for the network. Let's avoid that. Let's talk about how things generally are. Would it be wrong to say that an increase in block size = require more resources = centralizing?

[Tazzy4050]

Running your own node is super cool, and gives you a great appreciation of the power of Bitcoin. You’ll probably end up buying more and it will ensure valid and accurate bitcoin trading transactions...

[franky1]

Let's talk about how things generally are. Would it be wrong to say that an increase in block size = require more resources = centralizing?

again he shouts out his song sheet but doesnt back it up with any data/statistics or charts or anything.. he has done no research on his song he sings in 5 years

so one more time.

more transactions per block = less congestion
more transactions per block = less fee's per tx
more transactions per block = more users transacting
more transactions per block = users wanting to be full nodes

the cost of a new hardware over a 4 year lifecycle costs less than 2 tx fee per month if you were forced to only transact twice a month

heres the facts

over $1 a tx

so while Mr Windy is currently doing the rounds to promote a song about how people should stop using bitcoin regularly(facepalm) and use another network instead.. another network of cheap fee's and only need to settle up on bitcoin each month.

that settleup is a close and reopen tx.=2bitcoin Tx a month = over $2

which again simple maths for 10year olds, ill round it down for him too
(per year)$2 * 12month=$24 (2.64 x 12 =31.68 at time of post)
(per 4 year)$24 * 4years=$96 (31.68 x 4=126.72 at time of post)

so even in windys dream utopia of telling people to stop using bitcoin daily and use another network (of bugs, flaws and security risk if you just want to sleep) which just settles one a month, costs him $96 over 4 years, before considering all the fee's and value lost inside that network

upgrading a hard drive is less than this

as for internet.
even the most basic packages are able to cope with bitcoin use.

heck they are able to cope with HD movie use which is more data streaming than bitcoin

however. if people want to transact more than twice a month on bitcoin .. its the FEE'S that cost more than hardware.

Fee's due to the econo-political decisions to restrict utility. not due to any physics reasons

its the fee's that is turning people away from being bitcoiners regular.
its the fee's that is turning people away from running a full node, because they dont want to use the network when it costs more than other payment services that fiat offer
EG why pay someone abroad in bitcoin if its cheaper to just use paypal/venmo or even.. a postage stamp

[Jon_Hodl]

For running a node on a dedicated computer like a Raspberry Pi, it will cost about $300 for all of the necessary hardware but if you have an old laptop or desktop computer sitting around, you can probably run a pruned node on that.

For a brand-new user, I would suggest starting with Umbrel because their UI is the cleanest and their instructions are the best. They also have their own community forum with all sorts of topics that have been helpful to me personally. I use it all the time and I wish there were more dedicated forums for the different node implementations.

For someone with a little more experience, I would suggest using MyNode since they seem to have a bit more manual control like the ability to get into the command line and enter "/help" to get all of the different commands that you can enter. This can be an excellent learning experience for a new user who is going further down the rabbit hole.

For someone looking to run a lightning node, you can run a RaspiBlitz on the same hardware but their focus is to make it as easy as possible to route payments on the lightning network.

I wrote an article on this recently that might be helpful: https://www.whatisbitcoin.com/technical/how-to-run-a-bitcoin-node

I am working on some more technical node services that you can run but their hardware is a bit more difficult to come by and setting them up requires a bit of technical expertise or even getting into the command line. For instance, I am planning on running a dedicated BTCPay server on a Ras Pi but I need to get it all set up before I can really be sure of how useful it is as an actual node. 

[Jon_Hodl]

It should be useful as actual node since BTCPay documentation show deployment example using Pi 4 4GB, https://docs.btcpayserver.org/Deployment/RaspberryPi4/.

This is where things get kind of blurry for me since I can see all of the steps on their website but don't really understand all of the code in their instructions. I am sure that the node could be used for all sorts of queries but I just have no idea how to do all of that...yet.

That's probably the primary reason why I haven't set up a dedicated BTCPay server yet. Maybe this thread will be what lights a fire under my ass.

[Wind_FURY]

Let's talk about how things generally are. Would it be wrong to say that an increase in block size = require more resources = centralizing?

-Snip-

The question can be answered simply, not your usual confusing posts designed to trick and gaslight everyone into questioning themselves. Because if bigger blocks was actually needed, then why didn't everyone start using BCash, the coin of which you supported, and which you also claimed to be "Bitcoin"?

Plus big blockers always avoid answering the question, "does ANYONE believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space"?

[franky1]

Let's talk about how things generally are. Would it be wrong to say that an increase in block size = require more resources = centralizing?

The question can be answered simply, not your usual confusing posts designed to trick and gaslight everyone into questioning themselves. Because if bigger blocks was actually needed, then why didn't everyone start using BCash, the coin of which you supported, and which you also claimed to be "Bitcoin"?

Plus big blockers always avoid answering the question, "does ANYONE believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space"?

ok lets actually answer your question

and your using memed buzzwords of trying to pigeon hole people into a group.. using broken narrative which you dont understand the real concepts that were being asked years ago

before 2013 there was actually a CODE/Berkeley database issue where 0.5mb was the block limit.. it was only found when user activity requiring more tx per block reached that limit..

so lets use that as an old implied limit..

removing that implied limit of 0.5mb(berkeley bug) and moving moving to 1mb and then in 2017 to ~ 1.4mb. did those events cause more centralisation..?

did it cause more centralisation of full nodes.. where there is only 1 central point of failure....?  .. answer is NOPE!!
ok got it?

hmm lets see how many full noders existed 2013 vs 2017 vs 2022

oh look there are more full nodes now than in 2013

and again
even the econo-political devs of core deem 4mb as not a network centraliser/threat

just removing the cludgy econo-political code that restrains the tx data to 1.4mb average.. to allow full 4mb a block full utility of more tx count and actually return to clean actual byte count. wont break the network


i did not nor ever have supported bch... you absolute social drama queen of ignorance..
grow up

i supported progressing bitcoin [not to be confused with other promoted networks brand stealing the name] to allow more transactions on the bitcoin network. on the main net of bitcoin and not via some other crappy side network people want to push people onto and away from bitcoin

where progress is of more transactions not shammy scammy tricks of saying:
here have more size but not more tx count
have more data space but we will multiply the bytes to make the seem bigger but still restrict the tx count
here have some new tx format thats "cheaper" because we made legacy more premium

my support was actually giving more tx count per block on bitcoin mainnet where its not filled with shoddy code that has manipulated peoples views and aimed to get people off the network

..
if you want to find someone that is promoting centralising the blockchain.. speak to your girlfriends who are trying to get more people to prune(not have decentralised blockchain on their nodes while pretending they are full nodes).. because THEIR game is to centralise the blockchain by having less copies of the blockchain distributed.. not me

look at who is advocating and supporting the use of pruning and promoting it to people that stipulate they want to be full nodes