Author: Peter Todd 2015-07-22 22:30:25
Published on: 2015-07-22T22:30:25+00:00
The context is an email thread dated July 22, 2015, between Jeff Garzik and Peter Todd on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list. In the email thread, Peter Todd accused Jeff Garzik of proposing changes that he did not understand regarding BIP102 and associated pull-req, which does not measure miner consensus. Todd suggested that if Garzik did not understand the issue, he should leave that discussion as he was not competent enough to understand it. Todd believed that Garzik was proposing a bad patch to push discussion towards a solution, which could motivate people to respond by writing better ones. Garzik responded by asking to keep things technical.Garzik then stated that 2MB has been discussed as a viable next-step that meets with the most consensus. He explained that 2MB would get beyond the 1MB hard fork issue while still remaining within a safety cap that should ensure the system does not go "off the rails" as some have predicted. Garzik also mentioned that security, privacy, and centralization would not disappear at 2MB. He further explained that a limited step gains valuable field data for judging whether further steps are warranted, thus informing the "better block size solution" development process.Finally, Garzik stated that BIP 102 is intended as a viable fallback should they reach a point of criticality where the user community feels a block size increase is warranted, yet cannot reach consensus on a fancy, all-consuming solution be it 20MB, flexcap, BIP 100, BIP 102, etc. He added that he was open to suggestions for improving BIP 102 and the goal was a minimum complexity fallback that others have previously agreed was a useful kick-the-can compromise - a static 2MB cap. A PGP signature followed the email.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T02:52:38.392870+00:00