3 ms·

There is also the contention that increasing blocksize would make running full nodes harder (at least by some margin) which therefore means an increase in centr

There is also the contention that increasing blocksize would make running full nodes harder (at least by some margin) which therefore means an increase in centralisation (by a proportional margin). It would also set a precedent that miners are in control (or alternatively it could be interpreted as no-one is in control). The question then transaction speed and low fees are more important than the marginal increase in centralisation. Core would argue that any increase in centralisation is too much. Not sure why they think middle men are acceptable though.

lawn 9y ago
> There is also the contention that increasing blocksize would make running full nodes harder (at least by some margin) which therefore means an increase in centralisation (by a proportional margin) Yet there is no attempt to quantify by how much. The damage done to Bitcoin by full blocks is much more than what a potential increase to 2MB would cause. This zero tolerance policy rhymes extremely poorly when the fees makes Bitcoin more expensive to use than to run a full node. > It would also set a precedent that miners are in control (or alternatively it could be interpreted as no-one is in control). Miners are in control because the real power lies with them. The problem is that they aren't coordinated and so status quo is favored.