Author: Mike Hearn 2013-03-07 17:42:32
Published on: 2013-03-07T17:42:32+00:00
The post being referred to argues for the implementation of strongly limited block sizes on the basis that larger blocks make it easier for authorities to censor transactions. The author believes that by limiting the size of each block, individual users will have greater control over their own transactions and be less subject to censorship. They also argue that this approach would help ensure the decentralization of the network and prevent a single entity from gaining too much power. In support of their argument, the author cites several examples of governments and other organizations attempting to censor or restrict access to particular transactions. The post goes on to suggest that current solutions, such as Tor and VPNs, are not enough to protect against censorship and that more drastic measures are needed. By implementing smaller block sizes, the author posits that users could ensure their transactions remain anonymous and free from interference. They also note that a decentralized network with limited block sizes would be less vulnerable to attacks from malicious actors seeking to undermine the system. Overall, the author of the post argues that strongly limited block sizes are necessary to maintain the privacy and security of blockchain transactions. While some may criticize this approach as overly restrictive or impractical, the author contends that it is a necessary step in ensuring the continued development and success of the blockchain ecosystem.
Updated on: 2023-06-06T10:24:19.238954+00:00