Author: Mike Hearn 2015-06-19 13:43:14
Published on: 2015-06-19T13:43:14+00:00
The context is a conversation between two individuals, discussing the issue of increasing the block size limit. The first person questions whether the other supports an increase in the current block size limit given that "layer 2" doesn't exist yet and won't for the next 10-12 months. They ask for a clear statement of support for Gavin's patch once posted. The second person argues that the need to raise the block size is urgent to prevent gumming up and falling over of the existing layer 1. They clarify that they don't argue that other systems can never happen but rather that they believe raising the block size now is necessary.The conversation then shifts to a discussion of the lack of a constructive process and the accusation that the second person accepted payment from companies to lobby for 20MB blocks, which they deny. The second person notes that Gavin is paid by MIT and has complete independence while they are self-employed with most of their income coming from a client interested in Lighthouse. They accuse Blockstream of having a conflict of interest in this situation because they are building Sidechains and Lightning, which positions Blockstream employees to argue against hard forks and promote a new network that doesn't yet exist.The second person also argues that polling suggests that users who are paying attention strongly support increasing the block size, and many Bitcoin users have delegated handling technical details to someone else and support a block size limit increase. They also note that the Bitcoin social contract is defined by the project's founding vision and that if Satoshi had spent more time on his original size limiter patch, this dispute would not have happened.Overall, the conversation focuses on the urgent need to raise the block size limit and the potential conflicts of interest within the Bitcoin community regarding this issue.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T23:36:53.341608+00:00