Author: Pieter Wuille 2015-12-18 07:56:58
Published on: 2015-12-18T07:56:58+00:00
In this email exchange, Pieter argues against the idea that Bitcoin Core development team is in charge of deciding the network consensus rules and is responsible for making changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. He believes that diverging from the satoshi block size change plan would require a high level of months-ahead communication to users. He also disagrees with increasing the block size in response to fear of economic change as economic change is inevitable. Pieter also discusses Segregated Witness (SW), stating that it does not solve the problems explicitly defined in email #1. He argues that SW only mitigates transaction volume growth after several months and relies on the assumption that robust adoption rates by up-layer ecosystem software are achieved. He believes that SW is orthogonal to the problem outlined in email #1 which a short term bump does address. According to Pieter, both SW and a short bump increase capacity available per price, but he disagrees with the motivation behind avoiding economic change as opposed to aiming for safe growth. He believes that a capacity increase hardfork is easier and safer to roll out quickly than sortfork SW. Lastly, Pieter notes the need to do both at some point.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T22:47:44.620154+00:00