Author: Elliot Olds 2015-08-05 07:29:50
Published on: 2015-08-05T07:29:50+00:00
The email conversation discusses the concept of "hitting the limit" and whether it is necessarily harmful. The author argues that the level of transaction fees in equilibrium can indicate the level of harm being done, regardless of block size. There is no criterion based on mining centralization to decide between two block sizes in favor of the smaller one. The proponents of a block size change should propose a criterion and simulate different block sizes to graph centralization pressure as a function of bandwidth cost over time. This would lead to a more productive discussion. The urgency of a block size increase is not necessary if the core developers are committed to reacting to a huge spike in tx fees with a modest block size increase in a relatively short time frame. Concrete examples are encouraged to encourage problem-solving and consensus. The 1MB advocates need to describe what would make them say "OK, in this situation a block size increase is needed, we should do one quickly!" while Gavin/Mike/Jeff needs to describe hypothetical scenarios or test results that would make them want to stick with 1MB blocks for now.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T04:26:47.819918+00:00