{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6r","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Gavin via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e On Jul 30, 2015, at 4:21 AM, Eric Lombrozo wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e and a number of the people most intimately familiar with the inner\n\u003e workings of the system (some of whom are in this thread) think that given\n\u003e what we now today about the Bitcoin network, increasing block size\n\u003e externalizes costs in dangerous ways. Remember that total cost includes not\n\u003e just equipment costs but also things like block propagation latency and\n\u003e specifically identified security risks. Some of these security risks were\n\u003e only appreciated relatively recently and were completely unknown in 2009.\n\u003e\n\u003e I would like (and have been asking) those people to take the time to\n\u003e quantify those costs and write up those risks in a careful way.\n\u003e\n\u003e I believe the costs and risks of 8MB blocks are minimal, and that the\n\u003e benefits of supporting more transaction FAR outweigh those costs and risks,\n\u003e but it is hard to have a rational conversation about that when even simple\n\u003e questions like 'what is s reasonable cost to run a full node' are met with\n\u003e silence.\n\u003e\n\nI think the benefit of an 8 MB over a 1 MB in terms of utility is marginal\n(even assuming miners actually produce 8 MB blocks). There are very few use\ncases that Bitcoin on-chain can support with a small extra factor. I think\nthe market will grow to adapt to whatever is offered anyway.\n\nBitcoin's advantage over other systems does not lie in scalability.\nWell-designed centralized systems can trivially compete with Bitcoin's\non-chain transactions in terms of cost, speed, reliability, convenience,\nand scale. Its power lies in transparency, lack of need for trust in\nnetwork peers, miners, and those who influence or control the system.\nWanting to increase the scale of the system is in conflict with all of\nthose. Attempting to buy time with a fast increase is not wanting to face\nthat reality, and treating the system as something whose scale trumps all\nother concerns. A long term scalability plan should aim on decreasing the\nneed for trust required in off-chain systems, rather than increasing the\nneed for trust in Bitcoin.\n\nMaking controversial changes to the network, and not wanting to face the\nreality that block chain space is a finite resource - whether enforced by a\nconsensus rule or by miner's capacity to process transactions - is a huge\ntreat to Bitcoin's usefulness in the long term.\n\nI think the risks of trying to make a controversial change to the network\nFAR outweighs the benefits of a small constant factor that \"kicks the can\ndown the road\".\n\nLet's scale the block size gradually over time, according to technological\ngrowth.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150730/fcd26023/attachment.html\u003e"}