Author: Eric Lombrozo 2015-08-03 08:20:39
Published on: 2015-08-03T08:20:39+00:00
The debate over Bitcoin block size has been ongoing for years, with some advocating for larger blocks to increase transaction throughput while others prioritize decentralization and trustlessness. However, there have been two incidents in the past (in March 2013 and July 2015) that required manual intervention and cooperation between core developers and mining pool operators due to consensus disagreement caused by bigger blocks. There is strong evidence linking larger blocks with the propensity for consensus forks that require manual intervention. The security of the system was based on a model that broke and could only be recovered through deliberate manipulation of consensus rules. The author argues that fixing issues that can lead to these incidents should be prioritized over increasing throughput by increasing block size, which could worsen forking tendencies. In contrast, some argue that the current and future users of Bitcoin prefer the short-term hit to node count over making transactions more expensive and competitive. Ultimately, the debate is not just about technical requirements and security but also political because it affects nearly all users to some degree.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T18:03:39.046563+00:00