{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub170s9de2ganthnna75443h70tnsn2lvmcq5365r0juk8nfa93lthqwjr45x","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub170s9de2ganthnna75443h70tnsn2lvmcq5365r0juk8nfa93lthqwjr45x","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-04\n📝 Original message:On 4 August 2015 at 12:59, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e That is not my position. Again, I don't know what the right blocksize\n\u003e for the short term is (I don't think anybody does).\n\u003e\n\nYou have no position (i.e. neutral). In other words, keeping the existing\nlimit.\n\n\n\u003e Therefore how the change can affect mining centralization must be the\n\u003e main concern, instead of (also artificial) projections about usage\n\u003e growth (no matter how organic their curves look).\n\u003e\n\nThe degree of mining decentralization is only one of many concerns. Users'\nmain concern is timely confirmation of low-fee transactions. Miners'\nconcern is the amount of profit they make.\n\n\n\u003e Also I don't think \"hitting the limit\" must be necessarily harmful and\n\u003e if it is, I don't understand why hitting it at 1MB will be more\n\u003e harmful than hitting it at 2MB, 8MB or 8GB.\n\u003e\n\nThe limit won't even get to be hit, because all the users that get thrown\nout of Bitcoin will have moved over to a system supporting a larger block\nsize.\n\nI don't know where you get your \"majority\" from or what it even means\n\u003e (majority of users, majority of the coins, of miners?)\n\u003e\n\nThe majority which the miners are beholden to is the economic majority.\nhttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority\n\n\n\u003e But there's something I'm missing something there...why my position\n\u003e doesn't matter if it's not a majority?\n\u003e\n\nYour position is only one of many and it does not carry excess weight to\nthe others. Individually it won't matter, because you can't control the\nimplementation that other people run.\n\n\n\u003e How is what the the majority has been told it's best an objective argument?\n\u003e\n\nDon't fight the market. The way the system is designed, the miners will\nfollow along with what the economic majority have decided.\n\nSo if you say 8, I must ask, why not 9?\n\u003e Why 9 MB is not safe for mining centralization but 8 MB is?\n\u003e\n\n8MB has simply been the focal point for this debate. 9MB is also safe if\n8MB is, but I suppose the opponents will be even less happy with 9 than\nwith 8, and we don't want to unnecessarily increase the conflict.\n\nIt seems like the rationale it's always \"the bigger the better\" and\n\u003e the only limitation is what a few people concerned with mining\n\u003e centralization (while they still have time to discuss this) are\n\u003e willing to accept. If that's the case, then there won't be effectively\n\u003e any limit in the long term and Bitcoin will probably fail in its\n\u003e decentralization goals.\n\u003e\n\nA one-time increase to 8MB is safer than a dynamically growing limit over\ntime for exactly this reason. Admittedly whenever the next debate to\nincrease the block size over 8MB happens it will be even more painful and\nnon-obvious, but that is the safety check to prevent unbounded block size\nincrease.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150804/b832895e/attachment.html\u003e"}