And there’s no reason we should be limited to 128. It’s all just so dated and stagnant.
replyChips can be made that dwarf that limitation, instead we’re stuck with this decade old nonsense to “work around” again.
Flip flopping between “the code needs it” and “the chips need it”.
How long should addresses be? 256 is good, lets you encode a whole ec25519 key. 512 for expandability? 1 megabyte for post-quantum?
replyWhy cap it at all?
replyIf you can process 512 then you get access to those, else you don’t.
Let the free market decide where it’s comfortable like it did with wireless security.
What good is a standard if it doesn't make devices interoperable?
replyCatcher pitcher model. Pitchers pitch, catchers decide what to catch. You want access to the 512 space, pick up the 512+ capable device.
replyFree market decides where it lands.
If there’s nothing of value at 512, it’ll naturally flop.