Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tubbyjr 1986 days ago
The only huge pushers of that were the like of core dev LukeJr... who wants to decrease the block size down to 100k or by 10x.

The article states that claim, as though it was the sole one, when it was just one small reason pushed by Raspberry Pi hobbyists... while the average person doesn't even know wtf a Pi or ARM SBC is.
1 comments
dylkil 1986 days ago
Why not increase the block size limit then?
link
xorcist 1986 days ago
This is also what happened. Larger blocks was implemented with segwit. This played out during an infected debate that provided the perfect cover to launch an altcoin without it, that changed the name and some constants in the code. The free PR gave them more economic activity from the start compared to similar coins, and was likely quite lucrative.
link
dylkil 1985 days ago
Increase the block size limit was really just a 1 line change, a single variable within bitcoin core controlled it. Instead of changing this variable from a 1 to a 2 they chose the convoluted mess that was segwit. What was so wrong with increasing the block size limit the normal way?
link
xorcist 1985 days ago
This was thoroughly debated over many months at the bitcoin-dev mailing list so it would be presumptuous of me to summarize that now. The list is open and anyone can read the actual back and forths that took place.

There were several perspectives on this, including that no one found a way to deploy that protocol change to a live network in an acceptable way. It is much easier to build consensus around "soft" forks.

link