What we have here is a battle beetween cash (on-blockchain payments: miners) and banking (off-chain payments: wallets, exchanges and future banking).
By limiting the block size, BitcoinCore devs are artificially imposing a rise in the cost of miner’s cash (intentional or not) and some people are securing their own banking business. It’s like forcing a cash transport market to move cash with little cars instead of armored trucks.
I personally don’t want anybody forcing me to use cash or debit cards. I want to decide it by myself based in my own view of pros and cons, being fees of each one the most important question.
I’m not a Satoshi cult worshiper, but Bitcoin original code had no limit in block size and shouldn’t had any. It’s pretty clear that if you don’t leave this block size issue alone and let the network compete and set it for free you will have this struggle every fucking year.
I think BitcoinCore devs argue false technical limitations:
1 — “Global broadcast network doesn’t scale: If you broadcast any coffe cup tx, you will end up with a huge block size and it will not propagate distabilizing the network”
- Upstream bandwidth is not cheap so it is not likely miners will create big blocks. Besides a big block will never reach all nodes in the network so it is not likely it become part of the chain, eventually disapearing. At the end miners will adjusts naturally to a balanced size/consensus block size.
2 — “Miners concentration allows spam and censorship (intentional or not) of tx”
- If your TXs are not processed, nodes can simply ban these miners. Spam TXs (mining own TXs just for the coin rewards) is not cheap anymore and will be less and less cheap since you are missing out TX fees. Again… users, nodes and miners can adjust naturally leaving bad actors aside. Besides this thinking is aganinst the basic functioning of free markets. If some country or place has natural advantages for mining (ie. cheap energy) it’s inevitable that these places will have more hashrate power.
Like Garzik once said miners only select (or ignore) transactions provided to them. The bitcoin client you run chooses what transactions and blocks to validate and relay. Miners cannot change the rules without bitcoin user agreement.
Mining would, is and will be done “by specialized hardware and serverfarms” like it’s written in the whitepaper and unavoidable, unless you do a major change.
3 — “It’s dangerous to modify the protocol and put to risk a 160 billion economy”
- They had no objections to activate segwit but don’t wanna know nothing about increasing the block size… and even they want to decrease it!!
4 — Moore’s law has not rolled up as tought in Bitcoin whitepaper, and hardware didn’t grow exponentially”
- I’m a average PC desktop user and in the last 10 years I have doubled my CPU-RAM-HDD and bandwidth. So why so terrible to double the block size at least ??
5 — “We also plan to #DDoS any #SegWit2X nodes and use our patents defensively against our enemies”
Do you believe this guy believe in free market and good competition set the size of the block and pricing of the fees ??
Core devs are despising miners. They claim to defend users but more and more it’s becoming clear what they are defending is their own business. War is what you get if you keep pushing: sooner or later they will end up with chinese miners doing a fork and a 51% attack on their “official enlightened chain” ending up with their techy-egocentric bluff and Bitcoin itself.