Take Two

nostr:npub1cewskadgfwluq34eemwqeuyc5zqkhqadysqyaj9mjv2t4gtcwkxqvxcg7j I am confused as well. hence the thought. I will take another crack at this. 

Assuming we plebs can afford more "storage" and "processing speed" in the not too distant future, then maybe we can increase block sizes and stay "sufficiently" decentralized. Mining equipment is "keeping pace" with technological innovation and making ASICs more efficient as time goes on. More hashes per unit energy spent, that is,

But node runners are subject to limitations (i.e., basic home computing capability) when it comes to block sizes and network speed. That is the feature, the killer app, the secret sauce to Bitcoin's success. I know not to mess with that. 

I wasn't there for the Block Size wars (I joined team BTC in 2019) but my question is: could we also take advantage of technological advancements, like the miners, when it comes to block size or network cadence? I assume these fall in the umbrella of node runners, not miners.

I just have to ask the question because I foresee this being an issue as more and more people want ownership on the base chain, not just layer 2 solutions. That IS self custody.

Ultimately, it is about learning why Bitcoin is architected the way it is. The delicate balance keeping Bitcoin alive :) 

Finally, I will say this in my defense. I am a card-carrying Ossification-ist. I probably would have voted against taproot and segwit. Still, it is good to discuss these issues to better understand Bitcoin. It is not religion. It is understanding. That's all. nostr:note1jcn5se2g5ex4ntdwndzrln0s387wrd5ezyxucq5qewy5zz63uckqt482l9