Author: Adam Back 2015-06-01 15:40:17
Published on: 2015-06-01T15:40:17+00:00
In this email conversation, Adam proposes that opt-in block-size increases are a better solution than hard forks for increasing transaction capacity. He argues that extension block payments are forwards and backwards compatible, and businesses who require more transactions will make it their problem to implement in their wallet. This gives users the choice to opt-in and maintains security while getting what is important - access to more TPS with a higher centralization tradeoff. The decentralization metrics are getting worse, not better, and this would not be a good moment in history to make the situation worse. Adam believes that extension blocks are less centralizing than a fixed blocksize of 9MB because realistically, if those transactions are not spam, they would have happened offchain, and offchain until we get lightning-like systems up means central systems which are worse than the slight centralization of 8MB blocks being single servers and prone to custody & security failure.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T22:02:57.120794+00:00