Author: Tier Nolan 2015-05-29 18:28:22
Published on: 2015-05-29T18:28:22+00:00
In an email conversation, Raystonn expressed concern over the lower security proposed by Tier for extended blocks. Raystonn believes that this could delay the implementation of larger blocks and is not an optimal solution. However, Tier argues that the potential centralization risk lies in the lower security. The root chain would have a higher level of security, whereas the extended chain would have a lower level of security. Despite the lower security, full nodes would still verify the entire block (root + extended). It is a "nuclear option" since any changes can be made to the rules for the extended chain. The only safeguard is that people have to voluntarily transfer coins to the extended block. The extended block may have 10-15% of the total bitcoins, but it would still be useful since they would be the ones that move the most. If someone wants to store their coins long term, they can move them back to the root block where they can monitor them more closely. Tier's proposal does make things more complex as wallets would have to list two balances.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T21:45:19.076595+00:00