Published on: 2015-05-29T18:28:22+00:00
In an email conversation, Raystonn expresses concern over the lower security proposed by Tier for extended blocks. They believe that this could delay the implementation of larger blocks and is not an optimal solution. Tier argues that the potential centralization risk lies in the lower security of the extended chain. However, full nodes would still verify the entire block, including the root and extended chains. The extended block would only be able to make changes to its rules, but people would have to voluntarily transfer coins to it. Despite having a lower level of security, the extended block may still be useful as it would contain a significant portion of the total bitcoins and would be responsible for most transactions. Those who want to store their coins long term can move them back to the root block where they can monitor them more closely. One drawback of Tier's proposal is that wallets would need to list two balances, making things more complex.The email thread also discusses the proposal for increasing the maximum block size and raises concerns about the potential delay caused by the lower security of extended blocks. The writer compares the current situation to the US Congress, where the support of stakeholders has become irrelevant due to the influence of lobbyists. They suggest secret ballots as a solution to eliminate the power of lobbyists in Bitcoin Core. The thread then delves into the technical aspect of increasing the block size through a soft fork using extended blocks with lower security but giving people the choice to move their money or not. This is presented as a fallback option if no consensus is reached.In another email exchange between Gavin Andresen and Pieter Wuille, the topic of increasing the block size is discussed. Andresen believes that the block size should increase but only after sufficient technological growth has been demonstrated to mitigate any risks. He refers to his blog posts on the subject for further details. While he acknowledges the risk of unforeseen consequences from a sudden jump to a 20MB maximum block size, he suggests that a dynamic increase would solve that problem.In a separate email thread from May 2015, Pieter Wuille expresses his opinion that developers should not be responsible for imposing economic policy on the Bitcoin network. He believes that hard forks should not be controversial and forcing the public to adopt a controversial change is an abuse of power that sets a dangerous precedent for future changes. Wuille argues that the block size is a compromise made by the network between utility and centralization pressure and should be treated as such. While he personally thinks the block size should increase, he believes it should only be done after sufficient technological growth has been demonstrated to support it without increased risk.Furthermore, in an email exchange between Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, Andresen expresses his belief that developers should avoid imposing economic policy. He argues that it is dangerous for Bitcoin and the core developers themselves to become a central point of attack for those wishing to disrupt Bitcoin. Instead, he believes that such matters are better left to a decentralized free market. The discussion also touches on the proposed alternatives to the 20MB maximum block size, with Hearn questioning why there is fee pressure at the moment and suggesting that block propagation should be made faster to eliminate the technical reasons for producing tiny blocks. Hearn proposes setting the maximum block size to be 20 times the average size, but Andresen finds this number too large and scary. He suggests using two as a neutral number, where half of the hashpower produces blocks two times as big and the other half produces empty blocks, keeping the maximum block size unchanged. Andresen concludes by restating his belief that developers should stay out of deciding economic policies and leave them to the decentralized free market.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T12:54:02.900057+00:00