I have read several posts here claiming that increasing the blocksize simply is not possible, risks that the network collapsds and that we need a real engineering solution. Well it depends on how much you want to increase it.
If you increase it to 2 MB, it certainly won’t result in network collapse. Everyone, including Core developers, agrees that it can be done and is quite safe if certain precautions are taken. But the question is: hould we do that? It doesn’t seem to be an urgent matter. A soft fork can alleviate immediate pressure and is a safer/better otion.
If you want to increase it to 1 GB (1000x fold), then you have a real issue. Few people will be able to run full nodes, so Bitcoin will be entirely controlled by few businesses. It will cease being "peer-to-peer cash", it will no longer be trustless.
Smaller increases are possible, but they don’t solve the fundamental issue. The debate is essentially between two point of views:
> OMG we are about to hit the limit within the year! Sky is falling! We don’t be able to onboard new users! Won’t be able to go to the moon! Increase the limit ASAP, like next month!
Block sizes are growing naturally, but it’s not a huge issue, as people can adjust their spending habits, stop making unnecessary transactions, etc. Let’s see how Bitcoin works under the pressure, let’s get an incentive to develop off-chain transaction systems, let the fee market develop so we can get a clue of how Bitcoin can be secured in future.
So one group of people is focused on immediate growth (like, this year), while the other is more interested in long-term vision.
Bitcoin Classic 2 MB hard fork doesn’t help much, it’s mostly to demonstrate that something is done/can […]
