What's the trade off of having big blocks? Why are some peo…

There are no trade offs of course.

Because the can play gatekeeper and charge fee’s

Because they think they need to run raspberry pie nodes to protect the network. They are against PoW and Capitalism and against BitCoin. And they think decentralization" means socialism.

Latency is a big one. Larger blocks limit storage of the ledger to data centers. The divide is really over security/utility. Small blocks makes space on-chain more expensive, create higher fees, and therefore attract more hashrate. Rhetoric on both sides.

I'm against big blocks cause big blocks is defining a blocksize. We see BTC with minuscule blocks and BCH with tiny blocks. I don't want big blocks - I want unlimited block size or max 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF to respect headers. Let Nako. Consensus work it out.

Thanks @welp that helps a lot.

I think securing a coin that's purely used for hodling seems pretty pointless

The usage of BSV should increase the # of transactions, and thus miners would be paid off in transaction fees which would increase hashrate yes?

@jim Miners don't vote on the rules, only which valid chain to continue to build on top of. Don't forget DAA,"Most proof-of-work" is a good metric for judging competing chains, not valid or in-valid chains. This has been talked about AT LENGTH.

Nobody cares about "most honest chain". Chain with "most proof of work" is the only important metric. Miners will work it out - they either find acceptable limits (which change as tech improves) or they go bust trying to break them, or by lagging behind.

Also many in the BTC camp believe running nodes and having as many copies of the ledger as possible is optimal, and I don't think they are wrong, maybe naive.

If BSV works, which it has yet to do, then the two probably reach equilibria over hashpower.

For BSV to win hashpower, it will have to either increase in price dramatically on speculation, or prove it can stablilize with GIANT MEGABLOCKS, and it's useful. Right now it's running the same amount of TXs as BTC, doesn't mean it can't, but it hasn't.

That is one possibility.

Those large number of txs could create a less stable system:orphaned blocks or unintentional forks. The solution around those problems requires more central control, like checkpoints, which kind of defeats "the most honest chain"

Not many in BTC are running nodes. They are running nodettes, which are castrated nodes with no ability to write to the blockchain.

Of course BSV works. It was working fine from 2009 to around 2013 when blocksize started to become a problem due to demand.

@welp Obviously a miner would be a dick to waste power by mining a block that's gonna get rejected by 51% or building on such block. Miners decide what is valid or invalid and if the users don't agree then their mining costs will increase as val goes to 0.

@jim All chains externalize tradeoffs on to other chains. See ETH and BCH. What you think bitcoin is doesn't matter, it's just implementations of software, and the smartest move is too simply hold utxos on all chains, and probably Monero :)

Yup. And that has certain tradeoffs that despite you're concise definition, holds risk! These games have been played before, BTC chooses to optimize for full nodes to control miners. It's simply an alternative definition.

Otherwise, you're a "maximalist."