A much more reasonable block size proposal, following historical growth rates in a "limiting nutrient" resource:https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6 …
-
@NickSzabo4 I agree, but isn't it still way too conservative? I would think this is great if we did a one time jump to 4MB first.
@juscamarena A rapid block size increase is a huge security risk: a reckless act to be performing on a $4 billion system.
![Giacomo Zucco [I identify as a -e^iπ vampire]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1172971162919415813/Pn8O2gkx_normal.jpg)
-
-
@NickSzabo4 An obstructive bottleneck that significantly delays or prevents sending transactions will be fatal to Bitcoin. -
@drwasho Attacks that create or take advantage of Internet bottlenecks are indeed Bitcoin's Achilles' heel. -
@drwasho Larger blocks relative to Internet bottlenecks => easier to attack Bitcoin (& hide attack in natural variation of bandwidth). -
1/
@NickSzabo4 Larger blocks means fewer nodes capable of robust bandwidth for block propagation -> less decentralized, easier to attack.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@NickSzabo4 Not raising the block size for fear of a security risk is standing in the ocean, in fear of the rain. -
@drwasho Rational people store their money in a dry safe. -
@NickSzabo4 Worked out for FDR.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@nickszabo4@juscamarena Appear to be two separate problems. 1. putting in a rule, where before there was X (fixed). 2. what rule is/does. -
@iang_fc@NickSzabo4@juscamarena But the rule cannot know the current degree of adoption or bandwidth distribution, so how could it decide? -
@mmeijeri@nickszabo4@juscamarena So q today is what rule should be. Meta-question is governance question of how we reach agreement on rule -
@iang_fc@NickSzabo4@juscamarena I propose shouting and calling each other names on r/bitcoin :-) -
@mmeijeri@nickszabo4@juscamarena As an example only, IETF solves this problem with WG/RFC/ rough consensus & running code.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@NickSzabo4@juscamarena Nobody said it was reckless when Satoshi placed the 1MB limit an order or magnitude above then-current needs. -
@dgenr818@NickSzabo4@juscamarena I'll be that guy: Satoshi probably should have started with a ~100KB or less blocksize.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
.
@nickszabo4@juscamarena perhaps we should cut the block size limit in half to improve security, then?#centralplanners - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@NickSzabo4@BjorkmanJesper@juscamarena You know that you have to appeal to a consensus based audience.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@NickSzabo4@gavinandresen care to comment?@OctSkyward?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@NickSzabo4@juscamarena And a contentious hard fork in general is a reckless act if it can be avoided as is the case today.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@NickSzabo4@juscamarena Let's keep things in perspective. Central banks gets much more reckless decisions on trillions of $.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.