Topic: Why is big blocks bad? - page 3. (Read 2063 times)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Omg that's such a stupid reason. So many people have unlimited bandwidth and 1-3TB hard drives. So that's totally null and void right there. Even doubling them to 2mb or having blocks that change with how much bitcoins are being used would make more sense. Why have a limit at all?
Increasing the blocksize to increase the transaction capacity of the network will also increase the storage and bandwidth requirements for running a "full node" of bitcoin.
Core believes that this would be bad for bitcoin because it would mean fewer people are "verifying" all the transactions, causing a bit more centralization in terms of trusting fewer miners and full nodes.
The big blockers believe that the network will survive and remain decentralized, and giving up a bit in terms of storage and bandwidth costs is worth it for faster/more transactions with lower fees.
Core believes that this would be bad for bitcoin because it would mean fewer people are "verifying" all the transactions, causing a bit more centralization in terms of trusting fewer miners and full nodes.
The big blockers believe that the network will survive and remain decentralized, and giving up a bit in terms of storage and bandwidth costs is worth it for faster/more transactions with lower fees.
What is Core's excuse to avoid increasing bitcoin block size to 2mb?
Jump to: