Author: Ryan Butler 2015-08-07 18:57:43
Published on: 2015-08-07T18:57:43+00:00
The debate over block size increase in Bitcoin has been ongoing, with some arguing that the block size should follow technological evolution and others suggesting that a larger block size would lead to centralization. The increase proposals have been modeled around the idea that the block size should be increased to a point where a reasonable person with reasonable equipment and internet access can run a node or a miner with acceptable orphan rates. While Peter suggested that the block size should follow technological evolution, Pieter believes that the demand for Bitcoin is infinite, and it just takes time for the market to find a way to fill whatever is available.Gavin Andresen argues that there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, including fear of bad things happening as we run up against the 1MB limit. However, Pieter believes that acting out of fear is not the solution, and that whatever size blocks are produced, they will either be too small to be competitive or result in very centralized practice, and likely both. He also suggests that technical discussion over where the line should be drawn on block size increase has been missing from the debate.Mark Friedenbach agrees that the issue is a matter of trade-offs, and that at some point, transactions below a certain level must be pushed into higher level or off-chain protocols. He does suggest that everyone working on Bitcoin would prefer everyone in the world being able to use the Bitcoin ledger for whatever purpose, if there were no cost. Ryan Butler argues that raising the block size isn't out of fear, but rather the realization that we are at a point where we can raise it and support more users and transactions while keeping the downsides to a minimum.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T18:26:23.520414+00:00