Published on: 2015-11-14T15:25:19+00:00
Erik, a Bitcoin developer, has raised concerns about the BIP proposals for the maximum block size in Bitcoin. He believes that implementing BIP101 would lead to centralization of the currency as it would outperform consumer hardware over time. In response, Erik has proposed an alternative solution to address this issue. However, another developer named Luke has pointed out that Erik did not consider newer BIPs, such as BIP103, and suggested that he collaborate with John Sacco, who has recently posted a draft BIP similar to Erik's proposal.Luke has criticized Erik's proposal, stating that it is unnecessarily complicated and lacks specificity. He questions how the 2^(1/2) block size limit would work and suggests that it could potentially result in rounding errors in different implementations. Luke also argues that the miner voting process is redundant since miners can already implement lower limits through soft forks. Instead, he suggests expressing the current possibility to enforce it by full nodes, but this should be done through an unlimited simple-majority vote to reduce the limit. Luke advises separating this from the hard fork BIP as it is somewhat unrelated.Erik Fors' proposal aims to provide a long-term solution for the maximum block size in Bitcoin. He identifies issues with existing BIPs, such as BIP101 leading to centralization and BIP100 allowing miners to vote on the block size, which may have negative consequences for trust and transaction fees. Fors' proposal seeks to offer a smooth growth rate based on a large consensus, making future growth more predictable. It places the decision for growth rate in the hands of miners, ensuring that there is always growth in the block size and that it never decreases.The proposed rules suggest a target growth rate of 2^(1/2) every second year or a doubling of the block size every four years. The growth rate is determined based on votes from the last half-year, and the block size increases at the same time as the block difficulty retarget. While there are some drawbacks to this proposal, such as the potential for a few entities to vote for smaller growth over an extended period, leading to mistrust in the network, the overall aim is to provide a long-term solution that brings stability to the Bitcoin network by eliminating fluctuating block sizes.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T16:51:50.133767+00:00