I can see the two types of control holders and accumulators can exert is different in perhaps important ways. I'm not sure I see all the relevant details yet though.Fully agree, didn't mean it to take anything from your analysis, just an FYI on the situation on the ground here in Japan. It turns out not really to affect your ballpark number anyway, because storage cost is so much more, but I wonder how it would be if people didn't even store the whole blockchain.I of course don't like when people say flatly, "Bitcoin doesn't scale." It obviously scales to some significant degree, after which we could try some more creative add-ons, but to say it "doesn't scale" as if magnitudes meant nothing is meaningless. Nothing scales forever, but if transactions cost orders of magnitude less than a penny to process, even on-chain microtransactions seem potentially feasible.People should be asked, "Doesn't scale how far?" A couple of orders of magnitude might not count as scaling to an engineer, but it means a tremendous amount in interim progress on the mainstream adoption front, after which other ideas will come out.Too many people can only engage in static thinking, never taking into account how all sorts of other things change by the time we've reached the dead end they're imagining. This is the same kind of thinking that Malthusians employ exprapolating that populations will grow until extinction without anyone taking measures to mitigate anything in the meantime. Or the long string of people who predicted an early end to Moore's law over the decades.