Author: Dave Scotese 2015-08-08 22:45:28
Published on: 2015-08-08T22:45:28+00:00
In this email thread, there is a discussion about the block size and the potential problems that may arise if it's not adjusted. The author argues that lowering or leaving the block size where it is would be valuable in preparing for when space runs out. They also suggest that raising the block size could lead to problems later on when bitcoin is bigger and more important. The idea of a backlog causing problems was brought up, but the author does not believe it's a significant issue as it only affects those who don't wait for even one confirmation. However, backlogs can train users to wait for at least one confirmation or go off-chain. The higher fees that come with full blocks could motivate an increase in the limit, which the author sees as a solution to a problem they expect to see. The biggest reason for not running a full node is starting from scratch, but the author has ideas on how to postpone being "full" while still being operational. This involves bonded representation of important not-so-large pieces of data. If done correctly, the whole network could know whether or not they were honest and enforce the bond if they weren't.The email thread also touches on off-chain transactions and their potential scalability. The author believes that off-chain transfer systems already exist and are simple and rapid to adapt and scale. Indications show that off-chain at scale with Bitcoin could be possible with trust-minimization using lightning and duplex payment channels. It would be useful to have an interoperability standard and API for such off-chain services to be accessed by wallets, and perhaps periodic on-chain inter-service netting.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T18:35:12.439227+00:00