Author: Eric Lombrozo 2015-07-30 08:21:02
Published on: 2015-07-30T08:21:02+00:00
The issue of block size in the Bitcoin community has been a topic of debate for some time. Andrew LeCody argued that running a full node would remain affordable even if block sizes were increased, but Adam Back pointed out that the issue is not just about affordability for motivated individuals, but about the behavior of the network as a whole and the external costs that could arise with larger blocks. The focus should be on finding ways to scale without sacrificing decentralization and security.In another thread, Raystonn argues that limiting block size will lead to increased pressure on fees and ultimately shift value to competing blockchains with cheaper fees. However, others like Greg Maxwell argue that current limits are necessary for security and decentralization. Despite these differing views, it is clear that finding a solution that balances scalability, decentralization, and security remains a critical challenge for the Bitcoin community.The discussion also centers around the cheapest way to send value and whether Bitcoin is trying to achieve this. The idea that "liquidity moves to the location of least friction" is questioned, and a link or reference is requested for the modern economic study supporting it. It is argued that Bitcoin has low liquidity due to the fact that buying or selling even 100 BTC affects the exchange price, and people are willing to pay higher fees for its powerful features.The concern of losing decentralization if block size is increased is also discussed with reference to a thread by Greg Maxwell on the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Ultimately, the thread emphasizes that protecting decentralization should be a priority, even if it means accepting higher fees and slower transaction times. Finding a balance between scalability, decentralization, and security is crucial for the future of Bitcoin.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T04:04:58.215793+00:00