Published on: 2015-06-30T19:59:23+00:00
The Bitcoin development mailing list has seen a discussion about the arbitrary nature of the 1MB block size limit in Bitcoin. The post suggests that there is no technical or economic reason to keep the block size at 1MB and argues for considering 8MB as the minimum applicable size. It emphasizes the need for specific use cases explaining how an increase in block size would marginalize them. Additionally, the post proposes a real discussion about finding the right sweet spot for block size and even questions whether 1MB is too big. Increasing the block size is seen as having the potential to create a fee market after coinbase subsidies decline.The conversation on the email thread focuses on scaling the Bitcoin network. Doubling the capacity is suggested to accommodate more network participants, but concerns are raised about scaling beyond that. It is argued that simply increasing capacity with hardware may be a solution. The idea of an 8MB block size increase is also mentioned, highlighting worries about exclusion and decentralization. Testing at double capacity (2MB) is proposed as a potential solution to address these concerns. However, the question remains about the purpose and feasibility of doubling capacity if there is no clear way to scale further.On June 30, 2015, Venzen Khaosan proposed a static 8MB block size for Bitcoin. This proposal sparked concerns about exclusion from testnet and mainnet participants, as well as compromising diversity and decentralization. To mitigate these issues, testing at double capacity (2MB) is suggested. However, doubts arise regarding scaling beyond that and the necessity of such an increase. Peter Todd contributes to the discussion, pointing out the lack of a clear path for further scaling in the proposed plan.In another message, Michael expresses his support for lobbying a block size increase to 8MB. Peter Todd proposes a combined back-test and ongoing forward test to ensure the infrastructure ecosystem can handle an 8MB block size. This includes considerations about the scalability of various components such as block explorers, SPV wallets, initial synchronization feasibility, and the UTXO set's scalability. Testing at double capacity (2MB) is suggested instead to avoid excluding many participants and contributors. The core issue is that an 8MB block size would exclude numerous mainnet participants (miners) and compromise diversity and decentralization.The context emphasizes the need for consensus in increasing the block size to a static 8MB. An analogy is made to an engineer building planes with increasing capacity, highlighting the approaching zero cost of adding transactions to blocks. However, miners still need to charge fees to sustain their business. The author calls for the community to collaborate and conduct necessary tests while agreeing on future increases in block size as technology allows. Stifling progress is seen as contrary to Bitcoin's best interests, potentially leading to a fork. The message stresses prioritizing Bitcoin's growth and expansion to meet user needs and market demand for increased capacity.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T14:09:32.579617+00:00