Published on: 2015-08-14T22:01:04+00:00
In an email exchange on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, Thomas Zander and Jorge Timon discussed concerns about increasing the Bitcoin block size limit. Zander emphasized the need to identify and address the risks associated with a block size increase before implementing any changes to the network. He acknowledged that Bitcoin's Lightning Network (LN) was developed to handle the network's growth, but argued that it would not be able to cater to all use cases such as remittances and cross-border purchases. Therefore, both LN and bigger blocks are necessary. Zander proposed discussing the potential risks of raising the block size in one thread while creating another thread to discuss why the block size should be increased. He encouraged contributors to think about the risks, even if they were confident that they weren't a concern at the current scale, as understanding and estimating these risks would be beneficial for future increases.In response to a question about "develop-by-concerns," the speaker shared a link to an article that highlighted the importance of setting goals and developing roadmaps to achieve those goals. The article argued against reactive management and advocated for a strategic approach where businesses identify their concerns and devise plans to address them. By setting clear goals and creating roadmaps, businesses can make informed decisions about implementing changes and timing them appropriately.The debate over the maximum block size in Bitcoin has uncovered a significant disagreement. While some argue that increasing the block size could result in further centralization of mining, others present formal proofs to dispute this claim. However, there are valid concerns related to increasing the block size. These include the potential worsening of mining centralization and the risk of government control enforcing transaction censorship, which could render certain use cases reliant on a decentralized chain impractical. Moreover, reversible transactions may face proportional fees instead of flat ones, impacting use cases like remittance. Another concern is that consistently avoiding the limit could lead to minimal minimum fees, currently set at zero. If fees and the block reward do not increase sufficiently, the subsidy block reward may eventually become inadequate to maintain the system's irreversibility. Noncompetitive block creation policies by miners and the emergence of unsustainable Bitcoin businesses are also possible outcomes. Lastly, misleading marketing around "free transactions bitcoin" may misguide users, causing frustration when they discover the unsustainability of this feature and the unreliability of free transactions. In light of these concerns, increasing the block size could have negative consequences for the Bitcoin network.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T15:09:10.775623+00:00