I have been following Bitcoin for a few years now, and I was wondering what the developers are thinking here about block size right now.
I realize that we can never evolve towards millions of transactions per second on the chain, I understand that – that's why LN etc. is under construction to also maintain the decentralization of Bitcoins while continuing to evolve. But wouldn't that also benefit the Lightning network, that more "deposits" on the chain to LN could be made in one block (imagine a few million users trying to access LN at the same time – the Bitcoins blockchain would be blocked quickly – essentially meaning no deposit in LN for a long time?).
If the block size has been increased to say 10 times (10 MB): I realize that Bitcoin node operators would start to experience problems with storing the fast growing blockchain (more centralization) – but then again , is it really necessary that everyone can execute a knot? Aren't nodes primarily used for miners and programmers?
I realize that validating your own transactions is a great thing, but should that be hindering scaling up on the chain? It is a cutting edge, but I think we have to find a balance. Either way, at 10MB we would be increasing the blockchain by 1.4GB per day, or 500GB per year (assuming the blocks are full), which is a lot. But then again, it's not unusual to see hard drives the size of a few double-digit TB these days – it seems that capacity is on an increasing trend, so maybe decentralization is possible. after all at this size? I'm really curious to hear more arguments against increasing the size of the blocks, now that a few years have passed since the big boom 🙂