I may out of my league on this thread ...but at least my post is on topic.....here it goes....
(basically a more detailed justification on my short post several pages ago)
I am personally against this fork (that looks like it is going to happen regardless) since it is not just about going to 20 mb blocks but the code that is going to ramp the block size up bigger and bigger over time , even by 2020 looking at 100 mb and it goes up and up from there , actually looking at the spread sheet linked here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CuOEM9uwO5w-RwWGCCZpVGVFwhHHHegxJZqTP5KyapI/edit?pli=1#gid=0 from Gavins blog eventually a couple dozen blocks are going to be the size of what the blockchain was two years ago.
(this is code from Gavins blog)
double_epoch = 6*24*365*2 = 105120
(doublings, remainder) = divmod(blocknumber-336861, double_epoch)
if doublings >= 10 : (doublings, remainder) = (10, 0)
interpolate = floor ((2^24 << doublings) * remainder / double_epoch)
max_block_size = (2^24 << doublings) + interpolate
|
This is a very aggressive (in my opinion) approach to increase the tx/sec limit a.k.a. scalability issues that are on the horizon.
I cannot deny it is a solution that can place bitcoin on a level to 'scale' as big as it needs to......
But does it need to scale that big ? That quickly ?
My concern is centralization. I can still run a node now but I won't be able to 5 years from now and most other people won't be able to either.
Who will run the nodes ? The storage, bandwidth and ability for the blocks to propagate...
Here is a pdf paper linked about Propagation in the Bitcoin Network by Christian Decker and Roger Wattenhofer which discusses possible 'dangers' of larger blocks.
http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/49318d3f56c1d525aabf7fda78b23fc0/P2P2013_041.pdfI suposse it is possible that just because the max block size is going to be much larger that it is no guarantee that all or even some of the blocks will be much larger but it is certainly an invitation and opportunity for the blockchain to 'bloat'.
To conclude my concerns are
1) Centralizatoin (and literally it may become 'impossible' for a normal person to run a node)
2) Weaknesses to security as block size increases (as discussed by others and in the pdf linked above)
3) I accept eventually bitcoin may need to increase block size but this prosed solution seems quite radical to me. So why do it ?
Would a more conservative approach not be better ? Why does it have to be done 'right now' and 'this way' ?
This is an attempt to bring bitcoin to the world, why not let the world come closer to bitcoin ?