>>11756097
Just more core bullshit. Let's step through it;
1) Block propagation was never optimised with proposals like graphene or many of the other options in BTC, because this would reduce the actual impetus to get what the core cult actually wanted; segwit and lightning to advance the interests of blockstream as >>11755971 correctly points out. Furthermore, The costs of running nodes relative to the costs of acquiring and running significant amounts of hashpower are laughably small. I would also note that this core observation, that orphan risk increase, acknowledges the fundamental fact I will make reference to in 4)
2) In the sense that you can't run doom on a commodore 64, right. This is still no legitimate excuse as to why doom was a good idea. Your raspberry pi being unable to keep up is not sufficient justification to hold back the entire world from economic freedom. Either get a better node to keep up with the chain or just use SPV as >>11756076 indicates was always the plan. No matter how big the blocks get, the block headers are always the same size.
3) This is just a re-statement of 2, and has the exact same response.
4) Either block propagation of larger blocks doesn't increase orphan risk, thus costing miners money and meaning they should charge fees, or it does and there's already a fee market. 1) directly contradicts this point. The "negative externalitiy infinite zero cost storage" bugbear is simply a one meg greg myth. It has literally never been even close to true.