Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization
by
tvbcof
on 27/02/2013, 21:26:20 UTC
...

Pruning would also put a cap on the running blockchain size, and doesn't require a hard code fork.  It's also the purpose of the myrkle tree from the beginning.  Satoshi thought about that, too.


It strikes me that Satoshi seemed more sensitive to system footprint than many of those who came after.  Both in design and in configuration he seemed to have left Bitcoin in a condition which was suitable more for a reliable backing and clearing solution than as a competitive replacement for centralized systems such as PayPal.

By this I mean that the latency inherent in the Bitcoin-like family of crypto-currencies are always going to be a sore point for Joe sixpack to use in native and rigorous form for daily purchases.  And the current block size is a lingering artifact of the time period of his involvement (actually a guess on my part without looking through the repository.)

I was disappointed that (now) early development focus was on wallet encryption, prettying up the GUI, and the multi-sig stuff if this came at the expense of merkle-tree pruning work.  I personally decided to make lemonade of lemons to some extent in noting that although I thought the priorities and direction were a bit off, the chosen course would probably balloon the market cap more quickly and I could try to make a buck off it no matter what the end result of Bitcoin might be.