Author: alp alp 2017-02-08 15:57:21
Published on: 2017-02-08T15:57:21+00:00
In this email exchange from February 2017, members of the bitcoin-dev mailing list discuss the issue of block size increase hardfork. Andrew Johnson argues that it is impossible to please everyone and that stifling the network to please a minority is absurd. Alp alp responds that 10% is not a tiny minority and that there seems to be a significant disenfranchisement and lack of consensus. Luke Dashjr shares a poll showing that 63% of voters want a larger than 1 MB block by that summer, but t.k. questions how this translates to the community opposing any block increase ever. When asked why blocks are "too large", Luke Dashjr argues that the full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic activity, with people citing high resource requirements caused by the block size as a reason for not running full nodes themselves. However, t.k. counters that the reason people stop running nodes is due to a lack of incentive to counteract resource costs and that making blocks smaller would not solve this problem.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T21:26:21.412156+00:00