Author: Joel Joonatan Kaartinen 2015-05-08 12:32:00
Published on: 2015-05-08T12:32:00+00:00
In a discussion on the Bitcoin-development mailing list in May 2015, several ideas were raised for determining the hard block size limit of Bitcoin. One suggestion was to base the maximum block size on the bitcoin days destroyed in transactions included in the block, which could potentially aid both scaling and fee pressure. Another idea proposed that the block size limit should be determined by a vote of miners, with each miner embedding a desired block size limit in the coinbase transactions of blocks. The effective hard block size limit would be the size having the greatest number of votes within a sliding window of recent blocks. A third proposal suggested that the hard block size limit should be a function of blockchain length, allowing for smooth scaling up rather than jumping immediately to a set limit. One participant in the discussion voiced support for proposal #1, as it allows miners to vote using already available data, making it simple and straightforward. However, another participant pointed out potential issues with relying solely on conscious voting by miners, including the possibility of mismatch between their vote and behavior, as well as the difficulty of gathering meaningful votes over the coinbases before a scalability crash. The discussion also critiqued Mike Hearn's proposal to jump to a 20 MB block size limit, with one participant noting that it merely kicks the can down the road without solving the underlying problem.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T20:11:35.277702+00:00