Author: Jorge Timón 2015-05-07 16:47:53
Published on: 2015-05-07T16:47:53+00:00
In an email exchange between Mike Hearn and an anonymous individual, the issue of making non-controversial changes in Bitcoin Core was discussed. The conversation centered on defining what consensus means in terms of agreeing on a change. The individual suggested that consensus is difficult to define, and it would be better to give power to anyone with valid arguments to veto hardfork changes. The individual also listed some examples of invalid arguments: logical fallacies, unrelated arguments, and outright lies. Technical merits should not count as a valid argument. Instead, we should filter the arguments, but not require an identity layer to blacklist individuals. The conversation then moved to discuss the concerns regarding the proposed increase in block size. The individual highlighted that more research about fee market dynamics with limited size was needed before any changes could be made. They also acknowledged that having a clearer roadmap for the proposed changes was essential. The individual suggested a 2 MB consensus limit and a 1 MB policy limit for now, which they acknowledge is arbitrary. Finally, the conversation touched on whether increasing the block size would lead to increased centralization. Both individuals agreed that this was an important question. However, they did not know how to measure it or how much centralization would be acceptable.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T19:44:48.055919+00:00