Author: Mike Hearn 2015-05-07 16:11:11
Published on: 2015-05-07T16:11:11+00:00
The context is an argument against a vague definition of "non-controversial change". The idea of consensus in Bitcoin Core decision making is challenged, arguing that the terms "controversial" and "non-controversial" are undefined and decisions are vetoed by whoever shows up and complains enough, regardless of technical merit. The example of a previously merged getutxo change being unmerged due to complaints is given. The notion that decisions are made by consensus is said to be just marketing. The question is raised about who defines the group of people for the consensus. The size increase proposal of 20mb is considered arbitrary but sufficient for present operation of Bitcoin ecosystem. It is suggested that miners would choose if there was no limit at all. Gavin's original proposal was 20mb+X where X is decided by some incrementing formula over time, chosen to approximate expected improvements in hardware and software. This was seen as a meet-in-the-middle compromise between concerns of those worried about block size increase. However, it is difficult to know what other kinds of meet-in-the-middle compromise could be made as the concerns are too vague and lack numbers. Various examples of vague concerns without specific solutions are given.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T19:32:52.084512+00:00