Reluctant to give this too much airtime because it will just bring out the trolls.
They are hypothesizing about a collapse in hash rate due to reduction in miner awards at sone future unknown date. So they want to take radical action now to reduce the block size to 300kb. But the hash rate is near ATH.
It’s hard not to interpret this as just a miner money grab. Don’t fix what ain’t broke. Focus on Schnorr and Lightning and other important shit.
I have zero enthusiasm for more block size wars. If an urgent need develops in the future let’s look at it then. We don’t need to take radical action to fix theoretical future problems now.
Reducing blocksize to 300k, for example, could be a softfork that is sort of like a preferred mining but does not absolutely restrict to 300k, no? And, the block will continue to have the 1mb limit while there would be a decent numbers of miners choosing to run the 300k restrictive software... something like that?
Seems like a decent idea, and it does not seem like a miner grab nor anticipation that lower hash rate is a condition precedent. It has other block propagation goals, no?
I'm not advocating, just pointing it out, but I don't see this push going away.
Fair nuff. I see this as a social attack and we just need to innoculate ourselves.
I don't see it as an attack.. but I doubt that it is very likely to go through... Seems like there is a decent amount of tendency towards the status quo, and any group that wants to get significant and meaningful consensus towards limiting blocks to 300k is going to have a decently uphill battle to convince others that such a reduction (limitation) is necessary and helpful based on facts and logic (in other words, they have the burden to provide both sufficient evidence and sufficient logic otherwise status quo will continue to reign).
TLDR: Currently, a push to educate and perhaps convince others to support a usaf softfork to 300k blocks does not seem like a threat to me, and it also seems like a bit of an uphill battle to convince others of the necessity of such.