> On Jul 23, 2015, at 10:14 AM, Robert Learney via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > That’s not exactly what’s happened though, is it Cipher? Gavin put forward > 20Mb then after analysis and discussion has moved to 8Mb, whereas the other > camp of core developers is firmly stuck in the ‘1Mb or bust’ group.
The issue isn’t really whether it’s 1MB or 2MB or 4MB or 8MB or whatever. First of all, the burden of justifying this change should be on those proposing a hardfork. The default is to not have a hard fork. Second of all, it’s not really about *whether* the block size is increased…but about *when* and *how* it is increased. There’s a good argument to be made that right now it is more important to address issues such as the fact that validation is so expensive (which as others and myself have pointed out has led to a collapse of the security model in the past, requiring manual intervention to temporarily “fix”)…and the fact that we don’t yet have great solutions to dealing with fees, which are a crucial component of the design of the protocol.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
