Author: Jorge Timón 2015-07-30 14:10:46
Published on: 2015-07-30T14:10:46+00:00
In a discussion on the Bitcoin developer mailing list in 2015, Gavin Andresen expressed his desire for advocates of smaller block sizes to quantify the costs and risks associated with larger blocks. He also suggested that having a "minimal hardware requirements" specification would greatly help with discussions about larger blocks. Rusty, an advocate of IBLT, published tests which seemed to indicate that the risks of larger blocks were greater than initially thought. Pieter Wuille disagreed with those advocating for controversial changes to the network, arguing that the risks of such changes outweighed any potential benefits. Instead, he suggested that block sizes should be scaled gradually over time according to technological growth. Venzen Khaosan argued that scaling Bitcoin was important, but that Bitcoin was much more than just a payment network. Andresen countered by saying that Bitcoin fees depend on transaction sizes rather than amounts moved, making it extremely competitive with "traditional systems" for many use cases. Andresen also stated that he disliked all the block size proposals, including bip102's single doubling to 2MB, as they didn't take into account future technological or economic growth. Finally, Andresen revealed that he had created a testnet for bip100's 2MB block size proposal, but unfortunately nobody seemed interested in running tests for different sizes before proposing a concrete size.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T04:18:04.527779+00:00