Author: Jeff Garzik 2015-12-18 13:56:45
Published on: 2015-12-18T13:56:45+00:00
In an email exchange between Jeff Garzik and Pieter Wuille, Garzik expressed concern about the idea of the Bitcoin Core development team being in charge of deciding the network consensus rules and making changes to satisfy economic demand. Garzik called this a failure for Bitcoin. He mentioned that diverging from Satoshi's block size change plan would require a high level of communication with users months ahead. Wuille responded by saying that he was not against a block size increase hard fork and even proposed pursuing a hard fork at a later stage. Garzik argued that the blocks grew fuller and people did not adapt to block size pressure and a fee market, so the Core committee needs to kick the can down the road because they cannot accept the risk of economic change, which sounds like a bailout. Wuille countered this by stating that they are arguing for continuing what they know works, which is having a "buffer" of space between average block size and hard limit. He also pointed out that there is clear consensus and expectation that block size would increase from 2010 onward, and it was always a question of when, not if. Sticking with 1M presents a clear risk of economic fracture and community fracture, as well as massive change to an unknown system at an unpredictable date in the future. BIP 102 presents an expected upgrade at a predictable date in the future.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T02:10:55.874412+00:00