Published on: 2015-09-11T18:17:19+00:00
In a discussion about Bitcoin security, Marcel Jamin suggests that increasing network connection requirements might decrease mining centralization. However, he argues that not being well connected with other miners is a problem for the rest of the miners, rather than Chinese miners who are the majority in terms of hashrate. Adam Back notes that full nodes play an important role in enforcing consensus rules and ensuring decentralization, and it is important to make it reasonably convenient to run full nodes for decentralization security.Back clarifies that the 8MB cap proposed by Chinese miners was due to current network infrastructure limitations, not a lack of interest in scaling. In a 2015 email, he discussed the importance of maintaining economically dependent full nodes for Bitcoin security. He argued that it is crucial to define what "reasonably convenient" means in order to ensure decentralization security. Additionally, he suggested that node operators likely have headroom for larger blocks and increasing network connection requirements may even decrease mining centralization.Back also addressed the proposal for an 8MB block size cap from Chinese miners, clarifying that it was due to limitations in current network infrastructure and what they felt would remain fair to all miners and node operators worldwide. He proposed a plan to gradually increase the block size from 2-4-8MB over a 4-year time frame, with a hard fork upgrade once everyone in the network has upgraded.The importance of economically dependent full nodes in maintaining Bitcoin security through consensus rules is emphasized in this email exchange. This ensures decentralization of policy and is different from miner full nodes. It is crucial that running full nodes remain convenient to maintain decentralization security. The Chinese miners' proposed 8MB cap was not meant to be a permanent solution but rather a limit based on current infrastructure. Back suggests a 2-4-8MB growth over four years, with economically dependent full nodes upgrading after a hard-fork upgrade.In another part of the email exchange, Marcel proposes assessing the technical possibility of block limits without driving up node costs too much. However, concerns are raised about further increasing mining centralization. The overlap between those who want to run serious mining operations and those who cannot afford an above-average internet connection is argued to be small. The discussion began with Marcel Jamin proposing an assessment of the current block limit to determine what is technically possible without increasing the cost of running a node too much. However, concerns were raised about the risk of further mining centralization. In response to this, someone suggested that the overlap between people who want to run a serious mining operation and those who cannot afford an above-average internet connection is very small.On September 9, 2015, Marcel Jamin proposed assessing the current technical possibility of block limits without increasing costs of running a node too much. It was suggested that most systems with a full node have some capacity left. However, there were concerns about the risk of further increasing mining centralization.The proposal suggests assessing the technical possibility of increasing the block limit without driving up the cost of running a full node too much. The determined block size limit will be set at the next reward halving and then doubled at every halving thereafter, reaching a hard limit of 8GB. This doubling every four years is expected to stay within technological growth predictions. The proposal is considered a compromise between Pieter's and Gavin's proposals, with an initial increase to start the growth and reaching 8GB in 2056 if starting with 8MB. The start date is set around mid-2016. The proposal suggests a simple and predictable approach where the block subsidy halves and the block size limit doubles. It may make sense to update the limit more often in-between based on a block's timestamp or for each difficulty period.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T16:03:38.803961+00:00