Large miners may exploit this by withholding blocks from smaller miners to orphan their blocks, thus effectively reducing their hashrate and participation in the network. This strategy could be employed intentionally or occur inadvertently among well-connected mining nodes, leading to a scenario where the larger the block size, the higher the likelihood of such incidents, which in turn pressures the network towards centralization. This progression towards centralization begins with well-connected mining nodes, evolves into colocated mining nodes, and eventually results in co-owned mining nodes. Another significant point of contention stems from the requirement that every new block be transmitted to every other validator in the network. This necessity was first highlighted as an objection in the initial response to the original Bitcoin paper on the cypherpunks mailing list. The argument against increasing the block size is predicated on the premise that doing so would necessitate a proportional increase in the number of full nodes, thereby exponentially increasing the network's total bandwidth consumption—an outcome viewed as inefficient and counterproductive. The increased operational costs associated with larger block sizes, including bandwidth, must ultimately be borne by the network, contradicting the goal of efficiency and sustainability. Despite these challenges, alternative methods of scaling Bitcoin have been explored and found viable without resorting to increased block sizes. For instance, the adoption of SegWit and the utilization of the Lightning Network (LN) demonstrate practical approaches to scaling that do not exacerbate resource consumption. These technologies have proven effective over the years and offer a more sustainable pathway by minimizing the onchain footprint, thus reducing resource use and offering savings that benefit end-users. Moreover, focusing on solutions like the Lightning Network—which restricts transaction visibility—rather than increasing public transaction capacity, aligns with the objective of reducing non-mining-related resource consumption while maintaining the security benefits derived from mining energy consumption.

The discussion revolves around the practical aspects and considerations of running full nodes in the blockchain, especially focusing on the implications of block size increases and storage costs. The person sharing this information has been operating multiple full nodes since 2013, including both pruned and unpruned versions, which provides a grounded perspective on the operational requirements and financial implications of node maintenance. One critical point raised is the debate over increasing block sizes to 32MB, which is considered a drastic step with potential negative consequences. Instead of directly jumping to such large blocks, the suggestion is to evaluate the impact by considering it as a worst case scenario. The cost of running an archival node, particularly one that relies on solid state drives (SSD) for storage, is highlighted. With the price of 4TB SSDs at approximately $200, the annual storage cost for running such a node is estimated at around $90, assuming the node operator opts for SSD storage due to its speed and reliability over traditional spinning hard disk drives, which could reduce the cost to about $30 annually. Furthermore, the necessity of running archival nodes is questioned, emphasizing that while certain applications may require the extensive historical data these nodes provide, the majority of users may not need this capability. This distinction underscores the importance of assessing the specific needs of a node's intended use before committing to the higher costs associated with more substantial storage solutions. In the context of storage costs and the ongoing evolution of blockchain technology and its usage patterns, the mention of ordinals introduces a relevant example of how blockchain data usage is diversifying. The recommendation to cautiously approach block size increases, starting with a modest doubling to 8MB, reflects a balanced view aimed at sustainable growth. This approach also considers the long-term viability of storage solutions, anticipating that advancements in technology will continue to drive down the costs of SSDs, thereby making the operation of full nodes more economically feasible over time. This nuanced perspective combines practical experience with a forward-looking view on blockchain infrastructure management, advocating for careful consideration of technical upgrades and their economic implications. It challenges the community to weigh the benefits of larger block sizes against the potential drawbacks, such as increased storage costs and the quality of data filling these blocks, to find a path that ensures the health and accessibility of the blockchain ecosystem.

The debate around increasing the block size limit within blockchain networks, particularly concerning Layer 1 (L1) adjustments, presents significant technical challenges and considerations. A key point raised is the impracticality of simply enlarging the L1 block size to accommodate more transactions or operational capabilities. This approach is critiqued for its potential impact on network decentralization and the practical implications for node operators. The original Lightning Network proposal, while a step towards scalability, acknowledged its limitations in serving the entire global population. An alternative strategy suggested involves exploring the development of additional layers that would operate either between the existing timechain and the Lightning Network or directly on top of Lightning itself. Such layers could potentially address scalability concerns without necessitating changes to the core