<div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="quoted-text">No one is suggesting anything like this. The cost of running a node<br></div>
that could handle 300% of the 2015 worldwide nonbitcoin transaction<br>
volume today would be a rounding error for most exchanges even if<br>
prices didn't rise.</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Then explain why PayPal has multiple datacenters. And why Visa has multiple datacenters. And why the banking systems have multiple datacenters each.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I'm guessing it's because you need that much juice to run a global payment system at the transaction volumes that they run at.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Unless you have professional experience working directly with transaction processors handling tens of millions of financial transactions per day, I think we can fully discount your assessment that it would be a rounding error in the budget of a major exchange or Bitcoin processor to handle that much load. And even if it was, it wouldn't matter because it's extremely important to Bitcoin's security that it's everyday users are able to and are actively running full nodes.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I'm not going to take the time to refute everything you've been saying but I will say that most of your comments have demonstrated a similar level of ignorance as the one above.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This whole thread has been absurdly low quality.</div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"></div></div>