Author: Adam Back 2015-06-01 17:21:15
Published on: 2015-06-01T17:21:15+00:00
The discussion is about businesses that want to have more transactions and the implementation of wallets for them. The extension blocks mentioned are forward and backward compatible, meaning a 1MB address can receive payments from an 8MB address with reduced security if it has software that doesn't understand it. This proposal allows for opt-in and incrementally deployable options, where exchanges could encourage their users to use wallets that support 8MB blocks by charging a fee for 1MB transactions. Extension blocks and lightning networks are unrelated things, and there is a tradeoff between security and volume when it comes to block size. Different people will have different requirements and comfort zones, and what is proposed is empowering experiments in larger blocks without getting into a requirements conflict with those who value decentralization. The author suggests waiting and seeing if the block size should stay as is for a year or reducing spam, improving decentralization metrics, relay latency, and doing a block size increment as and when necessary while also working on long-term ambitious scale improvements rather than volume. Overall, both scale and security are important within an approximately safe envelope.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T22:02:34.807389+00:00