Bitcoin's inability to scale is due to a variety of factors, but the 'true' one might surprise many. Most individuals are interested in the technology itself for the'main' reason. A smart scalability option does not include 10-minute POW blocks with only 1 megabyte of data. Terrible, even with the ever-increasing demand for BTC.

This is an odd difficulty to have, given that Nakamoto picked the 1 MB limit at random. It's a random prejudice. For him, the Bitcoin network may have never occurred to him that it would continue to remain at this level and refuse to grow (on purpose).

That's why it's so important to have a 1 MB restriction in place: It protects the network from bad actors, who could easily take advantage of the network's openness.

The attack on the Wash-Trade.

Any miner who succeeds in solving a block without regard to blocksize has the potential to launch a massive denial-of-service attack on the network. In the past few years, I've only been aware of this through the random research that I conduct. When a miner successfully solves the hash lottery, the next block can be added to the chain. All Bitcoin students already know this. But what if the block was clogged with trash?

Because there is no cap on the size of a block, a malicious miner might fill their block with as much garbage as they liked. Suppose they made their block one trillion times bigger? This would effectively force every Bitcoin node to save this Terabyte rubbish block for ever. In the event that this attack occurs on a regular basis, the entire network would be effectively wiped out because there is no block size restriction in Bitcoin.

But aren't Bitcoin operations subject to a cost?

Oh, I get what you're getting at now. Can't this assault be prevented by the high cost of Bitcoin transactions? Surely the attacker would lose a lot of money even if each transaction just cost $1, and a terabyte of data would cost a lot of money! Actually, this is inaccurate in two ways.

1. This means that once a miner has been granted this privilege, they do not have to execute the most expensive transactions. There are two ways a miner can win the block: They can disregard everyone's requests and leave it blank (an "empty block attack"), or they can fill up the block to the maximum blocksize with garbage wash-trade transactions using accounts they control for no fee (a "wash trade assault").

2. Who gets paid the transaction fees? OOPS! For this work, they are compensated by the block winner. There would be no transaction fees to pay, even if a miner was required to pay fees on the garbage block.

The vast majority of security is obtained through the mining of POWs, which is easily seen. Therefore, it is hilarious when ignorant liberal sheep enter the scene and pretend as though it is "a waste of energy," while in reality they are just barfing up propaganda and have no understanding what they are discussing. My liberal political leanings make this more upsetting for me. Even more than that.

Yet another instance in which you are not entitled to voice your viewpoint (or perhaps even Democracy is Trash). Some of the same people that spread misinformation about Bitcoin are funding global warming, endless wars, and economic servitude all across the world. However, I suppose that's to be expected when dealing with global politics. There is no dearth of hypocrisy or data manipulation.

There will certainly be a period of time in the future when we are just trying to figure out what we should be moaning about next because Bitcoin and crypto in general are going to fix so many of humanity's problems (and coming up short). The energy issue is not caused by cryptocurrency, but rather, it is a solution to the problem. The solving of the Byzantine Generals Problem was a miracle, and the fact that the genius who solved it is anonymous makes it even more fascinating.

So, why don't they merely scale up Bitcoin's block size?

Isn't that the real question?

As a result of this, a new version of Bitcoin called Bitcoin Cash was established. Over a matter that should have been a non-issue, the Bitcoin community split.

Blockstream (the main Bitcoin development team) is alleged to have prevented it from happening in order to consolidate and control the network. Bitcoin activities will be outsourced to centralized agents and custodians like exchanges (or other organizations) and the Lightning Network if the operations on the main chain are prohibitively expensive (which is also centralized and very strange).

Keeping the block size at 1 megabyte (MB) helps to decentralize the network, according to Blockstream. Many more individuals will be able to afford Bitcoin nodes if the blocksize is kept low. It's hard to say for sure, but I'm inclined to believe that it's a mix of everything, if only because it's my best guess.

The lower the blocksize, the more people will be able to afford to run a Bitcoin node. It's hard to say for sure, but I'm inclined to believe that it's a mix of everything, at the very least.

If I were in charge, I'd immediately boost the blocksize by a factor of ten, and there's really no reason not to do this. At the time of purchase, the 256 GB solid state drive was $200. Today, a 1 TB solid-state drive (SSD) costs $100. While storage costs have fallen by a factor of eight in the previous five years, the maximum blocksize for Bitcoin has remained the same While that's patently ludicrous, here we are nonetheless.

And this is why Bitcoin is unable to grow.

It can't grow because of the hazardous environment. The Bitcoin community is toxic, tribal, greedy, and hypocritical at its core. I wish I was just talking about blocksize. It's humiliating, to be honest. If Satoshi Nakamoto were here, he'd be disgusted by what's happened.

If you are a bitcoin-only advocate, you'll regard all other cryptocurrencies as an existential threat rather than the developing network of synergistic entities they are in fact: You are either holding Bitcoin or you are holding a shitcoin, and Maximalists don't care; you either have Bitcoin or you have shitcoin. This is the sole truth to them, and as such, they are completely deluded.

One of the panelists at this year's Bitcoin conference in Florida had everyone in the crowd raise their hand and then proceeded in front of the entire audience to disparage Ethereum.

I believed this was a Bitcoin conference, so I didn't realize you had to leave.

As if it wasn't bad enough, you scumbags.

Bitcoin's failure to scale is basically nothing to do with the technology, but everything to do with the community and culture of the network itself (emphasis on "cult"). Cults and toxic, close-knit communities do not scale, as you are about to learn the hard way. The game is over at this point. It's only a matter of time before you lose bitcoin and lose your first move advantage.

That's perfectly OK.

Bitcoin's value does not come from deflation, as I've previously argued; rather, it comes from the security it provides. A store of value is not what Bitcoin is, but rather a store of safety. Once Bitcoin is widely adopted and the legacy economy is completely subsumed by the crypto-economy, its security will be superfluous. If our adversary dies or is assimilated by us, why do we need so much security? It's worth pondering.

In the end, Bitcoin's original intent has been rendered utterly absurd. As a network that specializes in security, we need the highest level of protection for the most important transactions. In addition, who has to do the largest transactions? The affluent. The richest people in the world. The big businesses. The Financial Institutions. The authorities. Once again, it's fine that Bitcoin is going to be taken over by the same entities it was designed to disrupt... Be prepared for a disruption if and when they finally give in and acquire Bitcoin. Disruption was the goal rather than destruction. Disrupt is the name of the game. You know something is wrong when they suddenly start utilizing Bitcoin.

But consider what occurs after that.

For one thing, we've already won if the authorities embrace Bitcoin and are all rushing to create their own shitcoins in the shape of CBDCs. Conflicts of interest are made clear in this narrative breakdown. Bitcoin or a CBDC can't be made legal when other networks and communities are illegal at the same time. As simple as declaring all automobiles save Ford models illegal (which is impossible due to the lack of any rationale for such a measure).

It's a good thing that Bitcoin doesn't scale. Quite the contrary, it appears that everything is going according to plan. The Trickle-Down Theory is in full swing.. The scaling solution is found throughout the entire crypto industry. Everything is going according to plan because no single entity will be able to take over.