Author: Jorge Timón 2015-08-06 01:26:09
Published on: 2015-08-06T01:26:09+00:00
The discussion started with a question about whether hitting the block size limit will be harmful or not. It was suggested that equilibrium tx fees give some clue as to the level of harm being done, and if the fees are at $5/tx at 1MB, it's about as bad as if fees are at $5/tx at 4MB. The need for a criterion based on mining centralization to decide between two sizes was discussed, and it was pointed out that any metric would be better than nothing. It was proposed to simulate many block sizes before rushing into a decision, but it was also mentioned that centralization pressure not only comes from global average bandwidth costs, but there are other concerns too.It was suggested to use simulations to graph centralization pressure as a function of bandwidth cost over time. Centralization risk was considered more important than fee levels when discussing any change to the consensus rule. It was stated that reducing the block size can't guarantee that the situation will get better or even that fees could rise to $5/tx. Increasing the block size could make things worse too. A question was raised about when the 'big block size side' will consider allowing fees to rise above zero. A suggestion was made to focus on concrete examples, which encourages problem-solving and consensus.It was proposed that it'd be helpful if more 1MB advocates described what would make them say "OK, in this situation a block size increase is needed, we should do one quickly! ", and also if Gavin/Mike/Jeff described what hypothetical scenarios and/or test results would make them want to stick with 1MB blocks for now. Finally, grouping anyone that has raised any concern about rising the consensus block size limit as "the 1MBers" was considered unfair.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T04:33:44.910380+00:00