Author: Peter Todd 2015-09-19 01:47:10
Published on: 2015-09-19T01:47:10+00:00
In a bitcoin-dev thread, Matt Corallo clarified that there was no agreement on a desire to schedule a second hard fork and that while many agreed that a short-term hard fork now would be necessary, some believed that a second one would have to happen. He thinks it is critical that there be no messaging that people should rely on or assume there will be a future increase after a short-term bump. There are still fundamental disagreements about the threat model Bitcoin should design for, and ultimately, what it should be. During a blocksize panel, Valery Vavilov, CEO of BitFury, stated that he thought we needed to set up a system of large, high-bandwidth, high-powered, Bitcoin nodes at institutions such as universities and large companies to allow the Bitcoin blocksize to be raised multiple orders of magnitude. The main objection raised during the committer/contributor discussions to the idea of a "short term bump" was messaging. Any bump should be accompanied by some kind of model describing scientifically what we were trying to achieve and where the numbers chosen came from.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T22:36:54.764488+00:00