4 ms·
It makes absolutely no difference by how much the block size is increased, it would always be an incompatible fork of the network, and that's contentious. That
by nkuttler 11y ago
It makes absolutely no difference by how much the block size is increased, it would always be an incompatible fork of the network, and that's contentious. That making a "small" change is some kind of compromomise is a lie told by one side.
- Hermel 11y agoThere was a planned hard fork in 2013 that went just fine.
- pyre 11y agoLies! Lies by the "other side!" /s
- makomk 11y agoThe 2013 hard fork had a couple of advantages over anything proposed since. Firstly, the only change it made was to modify the block acceptance rules to be what everyone had thought they were all along, so it was completely uncontentious. Secondly, the unintended block size limit it removed was an artifact of the DB library that Bitcoin used and could not be guaranteed to be the same on all clients - the choice was to hard fork in a controlled manner now, or risk a spontaneous and unplanned hard fork later. Even though technically speaking it would've been easy to bump the 1MB block limit at the same time, no-one considered it because it would've been a recipe for chaos.