Crypto Coins News - Ratings - Reviews
Mining pools provide prove-of-work but not prove-of-archiving, they can run pruning nodes. Also, there aren't many mining pools so the number of stored block chains wouldn't be enough and too centralized, even if they did all store the entire block chain.
A new node needs archiving and relaying full nodes, it cannot start from a pruning node. That's why Bitcoin needs archiving and relaying full nodes.
Doubling the block size limit would (if blocks are full) make it twice as hard for archivers to archive. Also, if, as a result of increasing the block size, fees decrease, the cost of spamming the block chain would also decrease. This is not a problem for mining pools because they get paid by the spammers but it is a big problem for the archivers.
A larger block size limit also makes it much more difficult for a new node to start and catch up, a problem that gets worse over time.
This is in essence the scaling problem: archivers don't get paid but are necessary for new nodes.
Now, apart from opening and closing a channel, the lightning network (LN) doesn't have this problem. It doesn't matter how many transactions the user makes, even if itś just for spamming the network, because the user has to pay small transaction fees and only the last transaction needs to be held and only the ultimate transaction will become the on-chain transaction.So the LN doesn't have the archiving problem that Bitcoin has and that's why the LN is a real scaling solution. The reason for this is that the LN doesn't need Bitcoin as a perfect court-of-law as long as parties cooperate.
TL;DR Except for opening and closing a channel, LN doesn't have Bitcoin's archiving problem.