> So where's the research of how expensive nodes are and how many nodes would be lost if an upgrade to 2MB would happen? How big of a loss would be acceptable? Ideally how many nodes should exist in the network for it to be sufficiently decentralized? How much bandwidth is needed? How long can we expect our storage to last?
> There is no credible research done
That's precisely my point. Contributors have shown that full nodes are necessary to preserve the security of the network (see the links I posted), but the proposal of S2X was executed without ever engaging on a discussion to answer the very questions you are asking now.
They are good questions, and we should discuss them and we should answer them. But Jeff Garzik and the 5 other CEOs did not attempt to do this research and instead steamrolled ahead with btc1/s2x.
The damage the 1MB limit has done and is doing to Bitcoin is far more than possibly a couple of lost nodes would mean after an upgrade to 2MB.
This has been a problem for years. For example Gavin thought 16MB would be perfectly safe. There's research being done now examining 1GB blocks and how that would affect propagation time. A lousy 2MB is honestly laughable.
Doing nothing isn't the pragmatic or sane approach, it's the insane one.
In one post your criticism is that there is a lack of research, and I agree. But now you're making unsubstantiated claims again... the damage done to bitcoin? All meaningful metrics from BitPay's transaction volume [0] to on chain USD volume [1] to the price [2] shows that Bitcoin is doing fine and does not need saving. Public data shows that even though a fee market is developing, Bitcoin is still rising quickly in use and value.
As for the 1GB block research you're talking about, it was literally presented 5 days ago. S2X proposal started in May and the fork was planned for next week. The way we want this secure digital money thing to work is that proposals that are controversial or that may affect security are researched and the research is reviewed over many months or years.
I know you want to take the quick approach and just LOWER FEES NOW, but we know -- from experience -- that a cowboy attitude with blockchains makes it trivial to lose a lot of money [3].
> But now you're making unsubstantiated claims again... the damage done to bitcoin?
How about comparing Bitcoin's percentage of total market capitalization [0] which crashed from ~80% down to ~40% when the blocks became full? The last month has regained that quite a bit but you could speculate it's because the promise of long overdue on chain capacity increase.
> I know you want to take the quick approach and just LOWER FEES NOW
It's been years since the limit should have been increased. Yet here we are with no on chain scaling for Bitcoin even remotely close to reality.
> that a cowboy attitude with blockchains makes it trivial to lose a lot of money
You're really comparing apples and oranges if you compare raising the block size with Ethereum's poorly designed smart contracts.
> There is no credible research done
That's precisely my point. Contributors have shown that full nodes are necessary to preserve the security of the network (see the links I posted), but the proposal of S2X was executed without ever engaging on a discussion to answer the very questions you are asking now.
They are good questions, and we should discuss them and we should answer them. But Jeff Garzik and the 5 other CEOs did not attempt to do this research and instead steamrolled ahead with btc1/s2x.