Paul Sztorc wrote an article called Measuring Decentralization in 2015 that explains why small, cheap nodes are essential to decentralization. Increasing the blocksize only works on a layer two, because you don’t have to store the entire blockchain.
https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/
Scaling Bitcoin with sidechains:
https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/thunder/
Topic: Why was the block size not increased? - page 4. (Read 773 times)
Block size is in a sense still increased, well that depends on your definition. Blocks are definitely bigger than 1MB right now.
The most important period to look at would be the block size debate a few years back. One camp thinks that a hard and fast block size increase is the solution.Then again, how much should we really increase the block size? Can it ever be sustainable? The point about a unsustainable block size increase would be that we would reach a limit where only large entities can run Bitcoin nodes, delay across transaction propagation, etc. Big blocks takes longer to propagate, and stale rates would increase. I argue that this point is largely invalid, if you consider propagation speeds of the modern network as well as the inter connectivity of miners.
The other thinks that having second layer scaling as a solution would be the way going forward. Having lightning network was the key thing that made people think that the adoption would skyrocket once adopted and thereby reducing congestion on layer one. Well, it hasn't been extremely effective though adoption is definitely going up.
There are tons of supporters of both sides and they all have their concerns and their vision to what Bitcoin really is. If you want the actual answer, then it boils down a lot more to politics rather than what we can or cannot do.
The most important period to look at would be the block size debate a few years back. One camp thinks that a hard and fast block size increase is the solution.Then again, how much should we really increase the block size? Can it ever be sustainable? The point about a unsustainable block size increase would be that we would reach a limit where only large entities can run Bitcoin nodes, delay across transaction propagation, etc. Big blocks takes longer to propagate, and stale rates would increase. I argue that this point is largely invalid, if you consider propagation speeds of the modern network as well as the inter connectivity of miners.
The other thinks that having second layer scaling as a solution would be the way going forward. Having lightning network was the key thing that made people think that the adoption would skyrocket once adopted and thereby reducing congestion on layer one. Well, it hasn't been extremely effective though adoption is definitely going up.
There are tons of supporters of both sides and they all have their concerns and their vision to what Bitcoin really is. If you want the actual answer, then it boils down a lot more to politics rather than what we can or cannot do.
All I heard was that the block size was not increased and this led to the creation of Bitcoin Cash. It was a fork but it is an altcoin (shit coin) while bitcoin remain the bitcoin.
But I am thinking recently that if the block size is increased, more transactions can be processed and the mempool will not be congested. If the block size can be in a way that 1 sat/vbyte transactions can all be processed in the next block, will this not be good?
If the block size is increased, what is its disadvantage to bitcoin network and miners?
But I am thinking recently that if the block size is increased, more transactions can be processed and the mempool will not be congested. If the block size can be in a way that 1 sat/vbyte transactions can all be processed in the next block, will this not be good?
If the block size is increased, what is its disadvantage to bitcoin network and miners?
Jump to: