Author: David Vorick 2017-03-29 15:57:19
Published on: 2017-03-29T15:57:19+00:00
In an email conversation with the bitcoin-dev mailing list, Martin Lízner expressed his belief that a hard fork is a necessary evil. However, another member of the group disagreed, stating that a soft-fork blocksize increase could be achieved in a way that maintains full backwards compatibility for all nodes. They argued that there is no need for a hard fork unless there is a significant security motivation. They also expressed concern about the cost of running a full node, which is important for providing a strong defense against political maneuvering. The impact on affordable, non-dedicated home-hardware should be a top consideration when determining what block size is acceptable. The most significant problem today is disk space, followed by RAM and bandwidth consumption. They believe that v0.14 is already too expensive on all three fronts and that block size increases should not be considered until the requirements are reduced or until consumer hardware improves, which they estimate will take 3-7 years.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T22:47:25.448466+00:00