Bitcoin Lightning Network Growth 1212% in the last 2 years

[taufik123]

There is a good lesson in this statement that one can not speculate on bitcoin price and adoption based on the drop from the ATH and the number of searches in search engines. The real adoption takes place in terms of usage of bitcoin, number of transactions both on-chain and on second layer, number of merchants that start accepting bitcoin, etc.

I don't know, it seems like Sam Wouter is just speculating on what he sees without considering anything else and the actual adoption by Bitcoin users.
He only focuses on the raw data presented without looking at the actual usage and adoption data done or not.

This significant growth in usage of Lightning Network is a clear indication of how bitcoin adoption has been increasing non-stop.
It also indicates how bitcoin current price is below its intrinsic value which makes the market state a manipulated one.

The Lightning Network is layer2 of Bitcoin that provides the best solution to overcome the cost and speed issues.
But everything is still in the development stage and there are still some shortcomings that the lightning network has such as theft and fraud activities that can be carried out by means of other users closing payment channels unilaterally or offline and charging more and more additional fees.
But this is still in the development process.

-snip-
but hey people will just want to shout and scream how LN is great and perfect, ignore all the flaws, bugs, real stats and just want to pump the fluffy media pieces which state things which do not actually compliment a network once you put them into context

The truth is that we can't ignore these flaws and I am even aware of some of the flaws that the Lightning Network has.
Everything is still under development and it's not perfect.
Remember that the Lightning Network was originally just an experimental project on Layer2 of Bitcoin to address the cost and speed issues. 

[1714633635]

1714633635

[franky1]

Remember that the Lightning Network was originally just an experimental project on Layer2 of Bitcoin to address the cost and speed issues.  

much like how governments that maintain roads suddenly tell  people to stop using cars by increasing the fuels and toll charges trying to get everyone to ride a train
only problem is the train stations and rails inbetween have more bottlenecks and are just waiting for popularity to go in their favour to then raise ticket prices per journey..
its not an experiment. its standard bait and switch economics that is as old as religion

when devs stop developing bitcoin and become economists(without qualification) and devs for other network preference, wanting to offer another network as the only route.. it does not help bitcoin it just popularises the centralised other network they promote for profit
(those who sponsor core devs didnt do it out of altruism they done it to push a way of getting middle men into the payments game for ROI)

funny thing is the 6mill LN payments of lets say 1 sat per hop is only 0.06btc($1600 in 2 years)
i made that amount just this month by only using the bitcoin network and true bitcoin services.. LN is a failure. its been 6 years and there are still issues and companies are not making the money they were promised years ago they would earn when they sponsored devs to implement code to make LN possible.
the 6mill payments in 2 years is equivalent to 12days of bitcoin transactions

[stompix]

LN is a failure.

Franky1, I'm asking you this time honestly, aren't you tired of attacking LN?
Why do you even bother, it's a done thing, nobody is giving crap about what some users which are obviously a minority say, especially when their arguments are that cheap transactions are bad, so what are you doing and why?
LN is here to stay and it will die only with Bitcoin, a thing I'm pretty sure you don't want to happen, so why? Seriously, why?

today mining does 23,587,200 a day

Don't you find it a little ignorant to compare the entire mining sector with just one lightning operator?

Phil is a miner, and although he is overreacting sometimes his math and reasoning are spot on most of the time.
You can't have security without a mining reward, and you can't have that reward without fees, in a decentralized network it's the users who pay, if you don't find a way to make them pay voluntarily it will suffer the same fate as an NGO that runs out of funds.

I assume you remember our discussions you can't say BTC will become centralized because we need to spend 200$ on some SSD while at the same time thinking gear running on 8GW will do so out of goodwill.
LN and the main chain need equilibrium, and ....money!

[franky1]

LN is a failure.

Franky1, I'm asking you this time honestly, aren't you tired of attacking LN?
Why do you even bother, it's a done thing, nobody is giving crap about what some users which are obviously a minority say, especially when their arguments are that cheap transactions are bad, so what are you doing and why?
LN is here to stay and it will die only with Bitcoin, a thing I'm pretty sure you don't want to happen, so why? Seriously, why?

LN is dying all by itself. its already in zombie mode. just held up by centralists hoping to penny pinch each other for tx fee's
and those against LN are not against cheap fee's they are against a flawed and buggy network being promotd as a solution to bitcoin

bitcoin will live on LN is already dying. im sorry you cant see passed the truth and just want the truth to go away to keep your dreams alive. but your dreams have passed the alarm clock. its time to wake up

other subnetworks have overtook bitcoin liquidity and participation and have fewer bugs/flaws
i personally am sticking to the bitcoin network. but the failures of LN need to be poked out before some people fall foul to the broken promises and fluffy promoted lies of ln's status

look how the chief LN devs(lightning labs aka blockstream) admit that LN is more complex to use so then wants to offer a centralised service.. funny part is LN was meant to be the solution to decentralisation and help allow users to be independent nodes.. yet now they are admitting to their failing by offering a centralised service as their solution..

there are many other subnetwork bridges to bitcoin and if you add up all the users. you will see that its LN that ar the obvious minority of userbase because there is a majority of bitcoin subnetwork bridge users avoiding LN and preferring other subnetworks
its time to wake up and wipe the drool off the side of your mouth

[Isuru_]

The Lightning Network is growing rapidly because it makes Bitcoin more useful for everyday payments. Businesses and people are using it to send and receive small payments quickly and cheaply.
Why this grow happened -
- Business adoption
- People using it for their needs
- Also bitcoin provide financially some freedom
- More countries or chain business accept it

Overall, the Lightning Network is growing rapidly because it is making Bitcoin more useful for everyday payments. As more businesses and people start to use it, we can expect to see even more growth in the years to come.

[philipma1957]

LN is a failure.

Franky1, I'm asking you this time honestly, aren't you tired of attacking LN?
Why do you even bother, it's a done thing, nobody is giving crap about what some users which are obviously a minority say, especially when their arguments are that cheap transactions are bad, so what are you doing and why?
LN is here to stay and it will die only with Bitcoin, a thing I'm pretty sure you don't want to happen, so why? Seriously, why?

LN is dying all by itself. its already in zombie mode. just held up by centralists hoping to penny pinch each other for tx fee's
and those against LN are not against cheap fee's they are against a flawed and buggy network being promotd as a solution to bitcoin

bitcoin will live on LN is already dying. im sorry you cant see passed the truth and just want the truth to go away to keep your dreams alive. but your dreams have passed the alarm clock. its time to wake up

other subnetworks have overtook bitcoin liquidity and participation and have fewer bugs/flaws
i personally am sticking to the bitcoin network. but the failures of LN need to be poked out before some people fall foul to the broken promises and fluffy promoted lies of ln's status

look how the chief LN devs(lightning labs aka blockstream) admit that LN is more complex to use so then wants to offer a centralised service.. funny part is LN was meant to be the solution to decentralisation and help allow users to be independent nodes.. yet now they are admitting to their failing by offering a centralised service as their solution..

there are many other subnetwork bridges to bitcoin and if you add up all the users. you will see that its LN that ar the obvious minority of userbase because there is a majority of bitcoin subnetwork bridge users avoiding LN and preferring other subnetworks
its time to wake up and wipe the drool off the side of your mouth

franky1 I know you don’t like LN and rail against it alot.

I happen to agree with you my post above shows why I think LN does not work.

freeze 17 btc to earn 80+ dollars a month with aggressive fees. or 30 a month with low fees.

17 btc is about 400000 usd 80 a month is about 1000 a year.

1000/400000 is not 1% interest it is 0.25%

and if you do lower fees it is

say 400 a year

that is 400/400000 or 0.1% interest a year.

you can get 4% easy from a lot of places why or how does 0.1% to 0.25% work well.

[franky1]

average channel balance 0.082 BTC
average node balance 0.352 BTC

so not sure why you reference 17btc, but lets instead use some known stats

yes on average for each sat payment the router charges 0.000050sat/sat  + 0.5sat base of total
so yes for each full use before rebalance would earn them 0.005% per session
but if they rebalance each month
that average 0.082 earns 0.00000411 before rebalancing per month
however onchain rebalance(close open channel) is
close tx of ~17sat per vbyte of 208vbytes = 3536sat
open tx of ~17sat per vbyte of 208vbytes = 3536sat
which means 7072sat to rebalance meaning negative balance/no profit for onchain fee rebalancing

so yes people do offchain rebalance by backward paying themselves using another channel.. but the funny part about this is when you rebalance using the routing game.. the other participants then get unbalanced in their channels, so they then rebalance through you. and so a tennis ping pong effect is that most payments end up being rebalance gaming each other fighting to find a cohesive status quo with each other  (which explains why all of a sudden services are showing more payments.. but those payments end up being rebalance sessions of playing ping pong)

[DooMAD]

LN is a failure.

Franky1, I'm asking you this time honestly, aren't you tired of attacking LN?
Why do you even bother, it's a done thing, nobody is giving crap about what some users which are obviously a minority say, especially when their arguments are that cheap transactions are bad, so what are you doing and why?
LN is here to stay and it will die only with Bitcoin, a thing I'm pretty sure you don't want to happen, so why? Seriously, why?

Undiagnosed psychosis, most likely.  That, and he clearly doesn't care about throwing away every ounce of credibility he ever had.  All he does is lie.  

other subnetworks have overtook bitcoin liquidity and participation and have fewer bugs/flaws

Since franky1 is the only person in existence using this phrase to describe layer 2 networks, it's difficult to quantify what this is attempting to convey (as per normal).  

The other major layer-2 networks are Rootstock, Stacks and Liquid.  Due to the current NFT fad, it's possible that Stacks could currently be seeing greater usage than LN, but even if so, I doubt this would remain the case long-term.  Plus, it's not really being used as a currency, but more for trading of assets.  Liquid's userbase is primarily aimed at businesses rather than ordinary users, so whatever usage it's generating isn't a valid comparison.  RSK's usage definitely seems smaller than LN.

But knowing fallacious1, he's probably talking about some worthless IOU like Tether or some "wrapped" token and just calling it a "subnetwork".

In terms of people making real-world purchases of actual goods and services, I'm pretty confident that there aren't other layer-2 networks outperforming LN.  We'll see what unrelenting drivel he responds with to avoid answering the question as to which network he's really referring to.

For all his talk about "being frank with people" It's like he's deliberately trying be as vague, evasive, misleading and disingenuous as humanly possible.  Total shit-smear.


//EDIT:  Yep, as anticipated, the slippery weasel has replied and totally and utterly failed to clarify which specific layer-2 network he's referring to as having greater usage and liquidity.  Like a sleazy politician who never answers the damn question.

[franky1]

doomad.. lot of people talk about bridges and subnetworks.. only your dozen idiot brigade recruits want to think of LN as a penthouse level network not a basement/subway level network

there are more subnetworks then that, but doomad only promotes certain ones that he hopes to ass-kiss/fame-up to hope to get a commission, pat on the back for promoting only certain things

i know doomads PR strategy of subliminal messages to push trying to make LN sound like bitcoin2.0. or bitcoin+ or 'on top of' bitcoin meaning better then bitcoin.. but doomad is ignoring the rest of the community that avoid LN for good reason. they see the flaws, bug and bottlenecks. they see the broken promises. they see they wont ever make an income from being a router.
LN is insecure, buggy and cludgy.. its a lesser network, not a better one

when 29% of liquidity is "river" when bitfinex had similar numbers, you start to see majority of LN is not independent users. but centralised services


as for the IOU.. unconfirmed transactions are not confirmed/settled. meaning if its not settled on your key its not your funds.. thats rule one of bitcoin economics, so if someone writes a promise to pay but doesnt settle up then yes its an IOU until the promise is settled so yes the onscreen balance of msats is a nonbitcoin unit measure that promised but not settled. thus yes most definitely an IOU because you dont own real bitcoin settled value you instead have a promise measured in msats
you might want to look at how the 'states' are stored in wallet data.
an uncleared/unsettled cheque is still an IOU


maybe if there was less effort into FUDing bitcoin to try to claw people into LN and instead put effort into making a subnetwork that meets its promises, people would then be more then happy to use that niche subnetwork.. but just wasting 6 years with empty promises and false promotions pretending that it solves things.. the dream doesnt last long when people use it for a while. hit the bottlenecks and leave to try something else..they wake up.
satoshi dice system a decade ago done the same bad practice.. it didnt last

el salvador used LN for 3 months and gave it up due to many issues they experienced. they were sold a false promotion and regret trying it in the first place. they were told it was bitcoin and users can easily move bitcoin. but when they actually used it they were just playing with msats that got blocked at many node relays. which made millions of users blame bitcoin even though they never used bitcoin.. LN gave bitcoin a bad name and made millions of people not want to use bitcoin due to LN failures

there is many news media pictures of el salvadorians protesting against bitcoin even though the only experience el salvadorians had was bad experiences of LN

it makes me laugh how LN main devs support things like 'renting' channels (people pay to have a account able to receive funds)
it makes me laugh how i can make a "faster payments" fiat transfer for free but LN adorers love fee's and charging people amounts to move funds
these fee loving creeps want bitcoin transactions to be expensive so they can then charge people more on LN(if it ever got popular)

[crwth]

It will simply cause miners to abandon BTC blockchain and move to Scrypt.

I'm curious as to what is Scrypt?


Since there's a significant rise in the number of transactions, there could be an added amount of users of it but comparing it to BTC users, there is still a lot of catching up to do.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You can't have security without a mining reward, and you can't have that reward without fees

And you can't rely on fees in a network that can only operate in an on-chain manner, because it isn't attractive for the user. Unless you believe that paying $50 for a couple of transactions is sustainable and will definitely encourage people adopt it as currency.

I assume you remember our discussions you can't say BTC will become centralized because we need to spend 200$ on some SSD

I very much remember myself saying that the burden to run a full node isn't the problem but rather the risk to rip the network apart as a result of consensus failure.

Listen, I understand that this forum revisits topics often, but I've reached a point where I'm honestly tired of having this conversation. Here's a sincere question: have you ever considered taking tangible actions to address this? Complaining once in a while won't effect change. If you lack the requisite skills to develop software, have you explored alternative forks that align more closely with your beliefs?

[stompix]

And you can't rely on fees in a network that can only operate in an on-chain manner, because it isn't attractive for the user. Unless you believe that paying $50 for a couple of transactions is sustainable and will definitely encourage people adopt it as currency.

Nobody is saying to have all the transactions on the chain! (well except Franky)
What I have been always saying is that you need to give people the space to actually create an LN channel cheaply if you don't want them to use a centralized solution, as for the $50 pet tx is EXACTLY the opposite.
I'm not advocating for a guy paying $50 for a tx I'm advocating for 100 to pay 50 cents!

Here's a sincere question: have you ever considered taking tangible actions to address this? Complaining once in a while won't effect change. If you lack the requisite skills to develop software, have you explored alternative forks that align more closely with your beliefs?

Oh, the classical, if you don't like it you can go!  

Fair enough!
Let's see what happens when Mara and Riot reach 40% and they will say that because of economic bla bla bla, weather conditions and geopolitical changes, they won't include transactions under 100sat in their blocks, suddenly it will make sense to tell people to host a $2000 miner at home to achieve decentralization.  

It will simply cause miners to abandon BTC blockchain and move to Scrypt.

I'm curious as to what is Scrypt?

LTC/Doge algo, not sure about the numbers but a bit more profitable for the same age gear, an s19 would be in red while an l7 would still run at 12 cents per kwh.

[Joeyp]

Bitcoin LN would be ok, but currently also ordinary Bitcoin transactions can be fast enough for ordinary user, if receiver accept first confirmation for transfer ( ~ 10 minutes ), but transfer fees are too high of course. Bitcoin LN is not very popular, so I do not see any bright future, because of altcoins, which have very fast transfers, cheap transfer costs, even free ( TRX ).

[BlackHatCoiner]

What I have been always saying is that you need to give people the space to actually create an LN channel cheaply if you don't want them to use a centralized solution, as for the $50 pet tx is EXACTLY the opposite.

You think the problem with lightning is to paying a couple of dollars to open up a channel? Because I think it's rather the technical experience you need to possess with running a node, maintaining your capacities and backing everything up perpetually.

Oh, the classical, if you don't like it you can go!

I mean, if you're dissatisfied with the current situation, you should take action-- whether it's writing software, running programs, or participating in proposals. Since I remember myself engaging in conversations with you, you've consistently pointed out the negatives, which is not inherently wrong. But, do you have any constructive suggestions to improve the situation?

Let's see what happens when Mara and Riot reach 40% and they will say that because of economic bla bla bla, weather conditions and geopolitical changes, they won't include transactions under 100sat in their blocks, suddenly it will make sense to tell people to host a $2000 miner at home to achieve decentralization.

Am I supposed to see some relevance with my post in here? 'Cause I don't.

[philipma1957]

You can't have security without a mining reward, and you can't have that reward without fees

And you can't rely on fees in a network that can only operate in an on-chain manner, because it isn't attractive for the user. Unless you believe that paying $50 for a couple of transactions is sustainable and will definitely encourage people adopt it as currency.

I assume you remember our discussions you can't say BTC will become centralized because we need to spend 200$ on some SSD

I very much remember myself saying that the burden to run a full node isn't the problem but rather the risk to rip the network apart as a result of consensus failure.

Listen, I understand that this forum revisits topics often, but I've reached a point where I'm honestly tired of having this conversation. Here's a sincere question: have you ever considered taking tangible actions to address this? Complaining once in a while won't effect change. If you lack the requisite skills to develop software, have you explored alternative forks that align more closely with your beliefs?

you are correct huge fees would suck and harm btc.

stompix is correct small fees would suck and harm miners which would harm btc.

Satoshi whole theme is turning power into wealth


scrypt for LTC/Doge in the long term is better designed to help mining stay viable.

Does that mean scrypt will win out over Sha-256 I do not know.

And back to topic

the biggest LN node had 17 btc in it and generated 30 to 80 a month income for the owner of the node

that is an obvious fail. It won't last with those numbers. see below

What's up WO folks.

I haven't frequent this corner of the internet for quite some time. The spamming of ChartBuddy sure doesn't help. He need to shut up...

I fricking did it though, amboss.space rank my lightning node as #1



The node has a total capacity of ~17 BTC, and is routing on average 0.5 BTC per day. Happy routing!

What kind of earning do you get with that size?

And how much of your coin stays in the pot?

I am curious 👀 because I want to get an ides how easy it will be for bitcoin to scale rewards down the road.

The earnings are ridiculously low, considering the btc I stake.

I did try to maximize my earnings for a while. By that, I provided liquidity to the LOOP channel, which provides a lightning/on-chain swap service at a very favorable fee for the node who open to them.

In order to do that, I constantly have to open a channel with LOOP, since they close the channel once it's drained on their side. This activity would quickly make me run out of inbound liquidity unless I can get lightning to on-chain btc at a cheaper price than LOOP. For that I used Nicehash and Kraken. The increased activity with Kraken got me audited though. They questioned me about the source of funds, even though I've been a customer of theirs for close to a decade.

During this time, my earnings was close to 300k sats ($80) per month. Now, after I've stopped this aggressive channel opening with LOOP, it's closer to 100k sats ($27) per month. 6-8 months more at this rate and my hardware investment will pay off.

My node is fairly balanced, so out of the 17 BTC capacity it has, 8 BTC or so is provided by me. So, like I said, the earnings are ridiculously low. It's self-hosted though. I don't need to trust my funds with any 3rd part.

Thank you for the service you are offering to others as you provide liquidity to many..

But fuck $80 in coin when you have $216,000 staked so to speak is brutal.

And the $80 earned was when you were aggressive.
Only $27 earned when mellow.

I was hoping you were going to say better numbers.

P.S. sorry I missed your reply.

Now those are the stats from the guy running that node.

assuming that is true LN is a fucking disaster 17 btc earning only 30-80usd  a month is not viable.

Maybe someone can get stats for other 2 layer networks and maybe they are better.

But Franky1 will turn out to be correct about LN if LN only make 30-80 usd a month based on 17btc

[kryptqnick]

Oh wow, that's surprising news to me. To be honest, I thought that the Lightning Network was an ambitious but failed project because of not being user-friendly enough, but I was wrong. That is huge growth that shouldn't be disregarded, although Helena Yu's point on how it doesn't translate into growth of the number of users also seems valid.
I was glad to learn (thanks to BlackHatCoiner) that it's actually based on 52% out of the total, so the actual number of Lighting transaction is even higher.
I don't use the Lightning Network, but I don't hate it either. I don't think it's a bad thing for Bitcoin, even though it's an off-chain solution.

[philipma1957]

Oh wow, that's surprising news to me. To be honest, I thought that the Lightning Network was an ambitious but failed project because of not being user-friendly enough, but I was wrong. That is huge growth that shouldn't be disregarded, although Helena Yu's point on how it doesn't translate into growth of the number of users also seems valid.
I was glad to learn (thanks to BlackHatCoiner) that it's actually based on 52% out of the total, so the actual number of Lighting transaction is even higher.
I don't use the Lightning Network, but I don't hate it either. I don't think it's a bad thing for Bitcoin, even though it's an off-chain solution.

I have been talking to a lot of LN Node runners basically they are not fans of what they are doing but they want to do some method to support BTC transactions.  As BlackHatCoiner mentioned there are a few other layer2 solutions I will be trying to research how well they work for the ones running them.

An LN runner is kind of like a POS for BTC and it is not going to scale and work with interest payments well under 1% a year.

At the moment any OG that has 100's of cheaper btc can afford to support it but that is not a longterm method. So if LN really works out it will need to pay about 2-4% to node runners. So that would be 8000 to 16000 a year to a 17 coin LN node not the 400 to 1000 it was paid last year.

[cryptosize]

I thought that the Lightning Network was an ambitious but failed project because of not being user-friendly enough

Linux wasn't very user-friendly 20+ years ago, but now billions of people use Android. They don't even know what Linux is.

The BTC ecosystem needs to have its own "Android moment", but no one knows what could that be. Only time will tell.

And the tricky part of user-friendliness is not compromising self-custody...

Either way, decentralization is very important, especially since we may soon enter WW3.

The more decentralized a network is, the most resilient it becomes against nuclear warfare:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/h-bomb-and-the-internet

Internet is totally decentralized, minus the DNS part (which is unfortunately centralized due to Root DNS servers).

Adopting DVD-size blocks (like BSV does) will surely hurt decentralization, despite CSW fanboys claiming to have a warehouse ready to host a PetaByte datacenter.

It's easier to bomb a few datacenters, rather than thousands of nodes.

[stompix]

~.

You think the problem with lightning is to paying a couple of dollars to open up a channel? Because I think it's rather the technical experience you need to possess with running a node, maintaining your capacities and backing everything up perpetually.

No, and this is why probably we have a disagreement!
It's not the sum it's the quantity, even if you would have people opening a channel every 3 months and closing it 9 months after you still need the blockspace unless you opt for centralized solutions.

With the technical experience, I'm a bit less concerned, every single day that passes a new generation becomes the majority, far more technical, far more willing to explore this, if we look at the median age probably it looks to them just like setting up core was in 2010 to the generation without smartphones

Since I remember myself engaging in conversations with you, you've consistently pointed out the negatives, which is not inherently wrong. But, do you have any constructive suggestions to improve the situation?

Yeah pretty simple one, raise the block space in steps by doing a 4x by each havening, allowing both transactions on the chain to go by with 1-2 sat byte, reach a million in capacity, and leave enough room for another thing, from LN to consolidation unlike things are now, Bitfinex did one consolidation that with their hot wallet and they've dumped 10 blocks of transactions, one and a half hour of capacity!

I'm not advocating for only on chain, not for only LN either, not for blocks containing money or videos but also not for blocks in which one actor can spam it with $1 million. Equilibrium, that's what I'm proposing!

[philipma1957]

~.

You think the problem with lightning is to paying a couple of dollars to open up a channel? Because I think it's rather the technical experience you need to possess with running a node, maintaining your capacities and backing everything up perpetually.

No, and this is why probably we have a disagreement!
It's not the sum it's the quantity, even if you would have people opening a channel every 3 months and closing it 9 months after you still need the blockspace unless you opt for centralized solutions.

With the technical experience, I'm a bit less concerned, every single day that passes a new generation becomes the majority, far more technical, far more willing to explore this, if we look at the median age probably it looks to them just like setting up core was in 2010 to the generation without smartphones

Since I remember myself engaging in conversations with you, you've consistently pointed out the negatives, which is not inherently wrong. But, do you have any constructive suggestions to improve the situation?

Yeah pretty simple one, raise the block space in steps by doing a 4x by each havening, allowing both transactions on the chain to go by with 1-2 sat byte, reach a million in capacity, and leave enough room for another thing, from LN to consolidation unlike things are now, Bitfinex did one consolidation that with their hot wallet and they've dumped 10 blocks of transactions, one and a half hour of capacity!

I'm not advocating for only on chain, not for only LN either, not for blocks containing money or videos but also not for blocks in which one actor can spam it with $1 million. Equilibrium, that's what I'm proposing!

Yeah bigger blocks will help. Heck I just grabbed a 2tb ssd for only 85 dollars. I used a free laptop that i loaded linux mint to it. and I downloaded the entire chain in about 20 hours.

my net does 200 speed tops. I likely could down load in 10 hours with a fast net.

Now that I did this new 25 core node I can clone a copy onto a 4tb ssd and then an 8tb ssd.

so an 8tb ssd can hold a really big blockchain.

Eventually you could load to a large spinner 20tb when you reach 7tb on your 8tb ssd.