Published on: 2015-08-22T03:02:44+00:00
The debate on increasing the block size of Bitcoin continues, with Antpool expressing support for an increase and willingness to switch to XT if a majority had switched. However, concerns have been raised about the influence of the Chinese state on Chinese mining and how it might pressure miners to adopt XT. It is recommended that people do not use XT and instead work towards developing consensus on alternative proposals such as BIP 100.The conversation revolves around the implications of capping the block size at 1MB, with one side arguing that it restricts the number of active users and harms the price of Bitcoin, while the other side believes that a relative tight block size may not harm Bitcoin in the middle-term. Will Madden expresses concerns about keeping the block size at 1MB, stating that it limits the number of active users and freezes the economic incentive to mine. Oliver disagrees, stating that only experienced users directly interact with the blockchain and can handle any problems that arise.The discussion then shifts to the idea of creating an information site about current outstanding BIPs, their differences, and supporting/counter statements. The website would also include opinions from Chinese pools and other major stakeholders. Peter Todd suggests that developers should explain their threat models and what should be at the root of their thinking about the block size.A group agrees that an increase in block size is necessary, suggesting 8MB as a more technically reasonable option. Chinese mining pools also express support for an increase in block size up to 8MB but do not want to upgrade to XT. Yifu Guo suggests creating an information site about the current outstanding BIPs and including supporting and counter statements regarding these proposals. The discussion also touches on the success of a 20-year plan and the hope that the current protocol and blockchain will continue, possibly with fewer users.A proposal is made to include major stakeholders like service providers and mining pools in the information site. The need for developers to explain their threat models and what should be at the root of their thinking about the block size is emphasized. In another discussion, it is suggested that analysis and options should be laid out before making any decisions on block size. A website proposed by Nicolas Dorier aims to provide a coherent view of the pros and cons of various proposals. Users can approve or disapprove of BIPs and leave comments on the website. Concerns are raised about premature judgments and potential harm to future decision-making.In conclusion, the debate on increasing the block size of Bitcoin continues, with different opinions on the implications and best approach. Some support an increase while others have concerns about specific proposals like XT. The idea of creating an information site to gather opinions and summarize differences between proposals is suggested. The importance of developers explaining their threat models and considering the root of their thinking about the block size is emphasized. The cap of 1MB on the block size is seen as limiting the number of active users and potentially harming the price of Bitcoin. The discussion also touches on the opinions of Chinese mining pools and the need for consensus among major stakeholders.Nicolas Dorier, a contributor to the Bitcoin Core project, has developed a website that displays a chart of approvals for different Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs). The purpose of the website is to encourage community participation and contribution to the project. Users can indicate their approval or disapproval of BIPs and leave comments on the website. To ensure the credibility of contributors, PGP keys are requested.During discussions about the website, concerns were raised regarding the collection of scattered PGP keys from contributors. Eric Lombrozo suggested that anyone who has made commits to the project should have a say in this matter. The conversation also touched upon improving the website's readability by grouping core developers under a separate column called "Technical Opinion. "Members of the discussion recommended adding more developers, big miners, and important figures such as Nick Szabo, Meni Rosenfeld, Charlie Lee, and Mike Hearn to the website. Some members shared their PGP public keys, while others inquired about where to find these keys. The conversation took place via email and BTC Talk.Nicolas Dorier agreed to incorporate the suggestions and requested PGP public keys from the recommended individuals. The website was accessible on Azurewebsites.net and GitHub. It was created with the intention of benefiting the community and encouraging wider participation in the Bitcoin Core project.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T15:31:39.467130+00:00