4 ms·

What’s the argument against increasing the block size limit to 2MB, from those who oppose this? I was under the impression that the original SegWit proposal in

by runeks 9y ago

What’s the argument against increasing the block size limit to 2MB, from those who oppose this? I was under the impression that the original SegWit proposal increased the block size limit anyway — albeit through a change in how it’s calculated, but still.

alanfalcon 9y ago
I asked this several times on r/bitcoin and just got links to a Core blog post warning, “this isn’t something Core supports,” and (essentially) “hard forks are confusing for users.” So if you blindly follow Core devs, then apparently that’s enough “technical” reason for you. [It seems to me that Core wants to keep small blocks so that fees on the primary chain continue to rise and everyone is forced to use the side chains that they are building and stand to profit handsomely from. They don’t want people being able to use the main chain for small purchases because it increases the size of the blockchain, which makes it more expensive to run nodes, but realistically they’re simply making Bitcoin too expensive to use at all.] Anyway, I’m curious if your question can produce some more reasonable answers here.
- lawlessone 9y ago
  They're right about confusions, bitcoin cash is simple enough to understand if you've been in this for a while but it's very confusing sometimes. Some people think they're buying one when it's the other. Others have lost money trying to set bitcoin from one branch to another. These is also an argument that making the blocks bigger wont actually make a difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox Sidechains will happen regardless.
tboyd47 9y ago
I understand that many of the Core developers oppose a block size increase because it would make it more costly to run a full node. Right now a full node can be run on practically any computer. I got a pruned node running in less than a month this year using some 10-year-old hardware I had sitting in my basement. At this point, though, I see it as little more than a highly politicized flame war. Years of having the same arguments tend to make people grow bitter. The interesting thing (to me) is how little this debate seems to affect the price and adoption of Bitcoin.
magnat 9y ago
Depending on who you ask and which technical details you omit or include: * Quadratic scaling in signature checking * Increased storage requirements for full node operation * Higher risk of mining empty block and/or creating minor fork blockchain * Centralized mining due to increased bandwidth requirements for mining nodes * Low/unknown support for big blocks among non-mining nodes At this point there are also important non-technical arguments: * Creating a precedence for further block size increments or hard forks * Giving in to vocal minority/"them" * Yielding some control of reference implementation * Pride

by runeks 9y ago

alanfalcon 9y ago

I asked this several times on r/bitcoin and just got links to a Core blog post warning, “this isn’t something Core supports,” and (essentially) “hard forks are confusing for users.” So if you blindly follow Core devs, then apparently that’s enough “technical” reason for you. [It seems to me that Core wants to keep small blocks so that fees on the primary chain continue to rise and everyone is forced to use the side chains that they are building and stand to profit handsomely from. They don’t want people being able to use the main chain for small purchases because it increases the size of the blockchain, which makes it more expensive to run nodes, but realistically they’re simply making Bitcoin too expensive to use at all.] Anyway, I’m curious if your question can produce some more reasonable answers here.

lawlessone 9y ago
They're right about confusions, bitcoin cash is simple enough to understand if you've been in this for a while but it's very confusing sometimes. Some people think they're buying one when it's the other. Others have lost money trying to set bitcoin from one branch to another. These is also an argument that making the blocks bigger wont actually make a difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox Sidechains will happen regardless.

tboyd47 9y ago

I understand that many of the Core developers oppose a block size increase because it would make it more costly to run a full node. Right now a full node can be run on practically any computer. I got a pruned node running in less than a month this year using some 10-year-old hardware I had sitting in my basement. At this point, though, I see it as little more than a highly politicized flame war. Years of having the same arguments tend to make people grow bitter. The interesting thing (to me) is how little this debate seems to affect the price and adoption of Bitcoin.

magnat 9y ago

Depending on who you ask and which technical details you omit or include: * Quadratic scaling in signature checking * Increased storage requirements for full node operation * Higher risk of mining empty block and/or creating minor fork blockchain * Centralized mining due to increased bandwidth requirements for mining nodes * Low/unknown support for big blocks among non-mining nodes At this point there are also important non-technical arguments: * Creating a precedence for further block size increments or hard forks * Giving in to vocal minority/"them" * Yielding some control of reference implementation * Pride