For clarification purposes, I’m not a computer scientist. I’m quite well informed on Bitcoin and economics and I am a bitcoin holder. And I run a proper node (well non mining..). Good Bitcoiner here 🙂 I still don’t know which side of the block size is right. I assume good faith from both sides and to me the ad-hominem attacks and accusation of nefarious intents are silly (Except in the case of Mike Hearn who ironically championed these dirty tactics)
I think it’s a good thing he is gone, because too divisive, too statist, didn’t see anything wrong with centralisation, blacklisting etc.. Jeff and Gavin on the other hand I have no doubt have a lot of skin in the game and hold very dear the ideals of Bitcoin: freedom. And both of them pay attention not only to the technical side but also to the economics of Bitcoin.
Now I have to say that if forced to choose, my logic would I guess be to stick with core developpers. Bitcoin is far from its final form and they are the one getting us there. They have delivered in the last few years, and are also building a lot of the innovations most of us are looking forward to. So the the technical side of it seems to be in their favor.
BUT I have discussed this issue multiple times with friends (including computer engineers) and most of us still don’t get what is the REAL problem with reasonably bigger blocks.
I think one big issue is that some people who were arguing for 1mb in the past came up with the node count as a reason to not increase the blocksize. The number of bitcoin nodes hasn’t fallen from 10K+ to 5k because it’s costly to run a node at 1mb. It […]
