I remember the block size wars of 2016 and 2017 that brought about BCH and BSV and others.
The clear winner was Bitcoin, the one that’s over $20k a coin. It didn’t win because it was objectively the best, but because the users decided it was. I never bought the other ones and have always stuck with Bitcoin “core.” However, I am still sometimes frustrated over transaction fees.
One of the biggest reasons I heard for not increasing the block size to >1MB is to maintain security and decentralization. If the blockchain grows too large too fast, then it would be harder to run a node/mine, and so the network would become more centralized to those with more resources.
So there’s a tradeoff. Bigger blocks means more transaction throughput and lower fees, but less decentralization. The free market decided that 1MB is the sweet spot. Is there really no way to have both?
I’m no blockchain dev, definitely not smart enough. But what if we implemented something like what MINA does with ZKP or a ZK rollup or a “snapshot,” etc., of the earliest 200GB blocks once the blockchain reaches 1000GB? Gigabytes 1-200 are rolled up and a “snapshot” is made (surely those transactions are immutable by that point?), and the whole blockchain size is brought down to about 800GB. Once it reaches 1000GB again, then the earliest 200GB are rolled up again. This way the blockchain size never reaches more than 1TB and the block size could increase to around 4MB or something.
I’ve read the Bitcoin Standard, I understand transactions cannot be free, there has to be skin in the game. But if throughput could be increase 4x, lower fees (never 0 fees though), and the blockchain was forever kept under 1TB, wouldn’t that be amazing? Is it possible?
If someone knows more about this, or if a dev reads this, please let me know why it would/wouldn’t work.
tl;dr Is it possible to increase block size and use ZK technology to increase bitcoin tx throughput while keeping the blockchain a small size?