6 ms·
I'm aware of that argument. The counter-argument goes that at scale, larger blocks would bring in more businesses, more miners, and more competition, and that c
by SnowProblem 5y ago
I'm aware of that argument. The counter-argument goes that at scale, larger blocks would bring in more businesses, more miners, and more competition, and that competition is what actually protects the chain from bad actors who might try to change the rules or censor transactions, not decentralization, and that decentralization is mostly a meme to pacify the masses from realizing who actually has power over the network.
- Geee 5y agoWell, that's a good argument but it's wrong. Larger blocks makes it harder to compete, because it's harder to run a full node. If everyone has to trust the datacenters that run full nodes, then it's game over for everyone else. The protocol is protected by allowing everyone to run their own full node, to give every user and every entity the power to choose which version of the protocol they want to run. When the network is run by its users, the network evolves in a direction that is best for the users. When the network is run by a few large businesses, the network evolves in a direction that is best for them. The Bitcoin Core's layered approach is a much better solution than big blocks. The first layer protects the protocol itself, and "big blocks" are implemented on layers on top of that without compromising the core protocol.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]