in

Do we need to increase the blocksize? I don’t understand Andreas Antonopoulos’ position on this..

See: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_kyYrbBY1I&ab_channel=aantonop](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_kyYrbBY1I&ab_channel=aantonop)

​

[48:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_kyYrbBY1I&t=2938s) – Are SegWit and Lightning the best scaling solution?

​

Haven’t we already been through this whole debate with the Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Cash attempts? Can someone clarify/make the case for why we will need to increase the blocksize? Or perhaps, why Antonopoulos believes this?

​

Ammous explains that an increase blocksize would result in fewer nodes (more expensive to run) and more centralization/vulnerability to attack..Curious to hear thoughts..



View Reddit by SnooPineapplezView Source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

11 Comments

  1. Listen closely to all of what he’s saying. He’s saying there’s still low hanging fruit on layer 2 in terms of scaling. When those efforts are exhausted – in many many years – then it will make sense to revisit the block size.

    Why will it make sense in many years if it didn’t make sense in 2017?
    1. Most of the scaling that can be achieved on L2 has already been achieved, compared to zero L2 scaling being achieved in 2017.
    2. The highly developed mature L2 means it has a bigger magnifying effect on any block size changes to L1, so a smaller block size increase will have a much more significant effect, compared to just trying to brute force scale with L1 in 2017.
    3. Computing technology and primarily storage space will have advanced dramatically since 2017, making bigger blocks less of a centralization risk.
    4. The number of validating nodes will be much higher in 2017, so losing a few to higher requirements would not be as damaging to decentralization.

    In other words, raising the block size to 2MB in 2030 in the presence of a much more mature L2 can achieve the kind of scaling that would have required a much larger block size increase in 2017, without the downsides that huge blocks would have had in 2017. It’s a nuanced and well thought out position, and I agree with it.

  2. rabble rabble….

    whether “it should” or “shouldn’t” be done doesn’t matter nearly as much as whether it *can or will* be done. nakamoto consensus on this issue is a very difficult level to achieve. the nuanced arguments like you’re trying to make here matter little. unless there is an immediately compelling argument (probably in the form of a threat to bitcoin’s very existence) that everyone can understand, it AIN’T HAPPENING.

  3. I approached Bitcoin after the block size war and don’t pretend to speak for Antonopoulos, but here’s how I interpret what he said:

    >Paraphrased: Both privacy and scalability are desirable to implement on layer 1. Scalability can be implemented on layer 2, but privacy can’t be. So it’s good that we focus on privacy first on layer 1. But scalability is still desirable to have on layer 1, so at some point after privacy is nailed down block size should increase to achieve better scalability on layer 1.

    I don’t think I agree (although I have the benefit of more than two more years of history behind us). I think that even if the entire population of the world used Bitcoin daily, the scalability we’ve already achieved on layer 2 like LN would be enough to accommodate everyone. But I could be wrong.

    Edit: I also don’t agree with Antonopoulos’s assertion that adding features to layer 1 necessarily magnifies the effect in outer layers. E.g. Increasing the block size won’t magically make LN scale any better than it does today (unless the channel opening & closing is the bottleneck, which I admit might happen in the future). But if channel management is a bottleneck, we’re already looking to solve it not by changing the block size but by introducing eltoo, etc. Which I admit are layer 1 features so I guess it’s not entirely true that we can achieve layer 2 scalability purely on layer 2. Although channel factories are pure layer 2 and probably could achieve the desired scalability, so maybe we can. (Sorry for going back and forth; thinking this through for the first time.)

  4. It’s a dead argument. BCash is living proof that increasing the block size causes centralization. BCash is also waiting with open arms for new disciples. Don’t ask about changing Bitcoin, just go to BCash and relish the giant blocks and 5-owner node network

  5. I also think increasing the block size is not a bad idea but I’m fairly new.
    As I understand between the reasons to not do so are:
    – Increasing block size will require more HD space to setup a node, increasing the entry barrier for miners
    – As there are less miners, network is less secure / decentralized.
    – Some people think LN is a better alternative. But I wonder if LN is really more secure / decentralized than increasing the block size.

    Again, I’m fairly new and talking from what I’ve learned so far.

    Edit: typo

  6. The Block Size thing is quite subjective.

    I think there’s a range where it’s okay, and Bitcoin is inside that range.

    If you want fast transacations and cheap fees the Lightning Network is the way to go.

What do you think?

btcchart

Bitcoin(BTC), Ethereum(ETH), Cardano(ADA) Price For The Weekend

clapping image

Bitfinex Pay Launches Support for Bitcoin Sidechain Liquid