| > In any case, fixing the blocksize limit will be good This presumes the blocksize limit is being fixed, which is an incorrect assumption. Originally, the proponents of Classic wanted to boost block size limits to 20MB effective January 2016 [1], and used bombastic and divisive language, inventing their own crisis even, to get people to take them seriously. Interestingly, those same people are now contending for just 2MB, which is only 0.4MB higher than that proposed by Core. Performance test data shows 32MB is the absolute maximum block size you can handle on a modern desktop PC today [2]. And by this I mean you could validate no more than one block per 10 minutes, hence realistically you actually couldn't run a full node on a desktop at 32MB. You'd need a clustered full node just to keep up, which is unprecedented in Bitcoin. To make matters worse, 32MB blocks gets Bitcoin to 300 tps which is less than 1% of VISA's current capacity. [1]: http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessaril... [2]: https://blog.conformal.com/btcsim-simulating-the-rise-of-bit... |
Hearn mentions the backstory behind this in a comment here [0], posted a little while after you posted your comment. After reading his comment, does the shift from 20MB max blocks to something smaller become less "interesting" and more understandable? If not, why not?
Edit: Additionally, do you have anything to say about this comment? [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10921219
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10921209