Everyone repeats over and over again Gavin would be the successor of Satoshi but is there actually any evidence for that?
It's a ridiculous concept. There is nobody in charge of Bitcoin. There is no King of Bitcoin. There is no successor. It is sad that so many people need someone to tell them what to do and what to think. If anything kills Bitcoin, it will be that.
...but on what is proposed software does. According to the block size growth, we need to increase maximum block size and no, it won't lead to centralization. But I still don't know whether 20MB maximum block size is needed ATM or is it better to have a lower maximum block size and increase it later if needed. I am still thinking on it. Anybody?
Why not start with 2MB size limit and when a certain threshhold is exceeded (2.8 for example) go up to 4 MB etc.?
I think the reason Gavin has decided on 20MB is to avoid repeating the adversity of again forking the client.
Quote from: PM from a dev
Bear in mind 20mb is a LIMIT. We are not anywhere near having enough transaction demand to fill 20mb blocks anytime soon.
But even if we hit 20mb tomorrow (won't happen), anyone can run a full node in pruning node, in which case old data is deleted and all you need is the UTXO set + a bit. So that's one or two gigabytes, hardly a big deal.
But even if we hit 20mb tomorrow (won't happen), anyone can run a full node in pruning node, in which case old data is deleted and all you need is the UTXO set + a bit. So that's one or two gigabytes, hardly a big deal.
