Author: Pieter Wuille 2015-08-04 11:27:16
Published on: 2015-08-04T11:27:16+00:00
The discussion among Bitcoin developers revolves around the centralization of mining in Bitcoin and how to improve mining decentralization. Pieter expresses concern about the outsourcing of full blockchain validation and the centralization of Bitcoin mining practices if Bitcoin were to "work" with gigabyte blocks, as some suggest it could. He argues that a centralized system using few blockchain validation services and online wallets and mining done by a cartel that only allows joining after signing a contract would be the only way for Bitcoin to function with gigabyte blocks. Jorge Timón argues against Mike Hearn's position that the block size limit should eventually be removed, advocating instead for a one-time increase to 8MB. Hector Chu notes that this is the majority position, while Mike Hearn argues for removing the limit entirely. Gavin Andresen suggested a 20 MB block size, citing data caps on internet plans as a constraint on block size. However, there is no agreement on what the ideal block size should be, and critics argue that there has not been enough analysis of the potential consequences of different sizes on mining centralization.Two changes have been suggested to improve mining decentralization: 1) Lower block size and 2) Finishing, documenting, and making the UX really slick for a getblocktemplate based decentralized mining pool. The latter is deemed more effective. There was also a suggestion to completely remove the limit on block size, but it was acknowledged that there is a physical limit somewhere and that it is easier to find common ground with others by compromising. However, the exact size of the limit is not of great concern as Bitcoin adoption is a slow process.The conversation then shifted towards the issue of exchange profit and whether or not a tiny high-value-transactions only currency can coexist with all the useful infrastructure that the Bitcoin community is making. It was argued that without infrastructure, Bitcoin ceases to be interesting even to people who are willing to pay huge sums to use it. The discussion then moved back to the topic of limiting mining centralization with consensus rules. The importance of not increasing centralization when rising the consensus limit and prioritizing the potential impact on market fees was emphasized. While many intermediate positions exist between caring more about mining centralization over market fees and not caring about mining centralization at all, the precise position of Mike Hearn was not clear.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T21:04:48.751685+00:00