The real debate about Blocksize isn't blocksize


Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2016
It's not about 2MB Vs Segwit
It's not about Core Vs Classic
It's about mainchain scaling Vs offchain scaling

One camp sees some centralization of full nodes as a neutral evolution, as blocks get bigger and bigger the barrier to entry to run a full node will grow.

The other camp sees some centralization of blockchain accessibility as a neutral evolution, as bitcoin becomes more and more popular and its block space limited, the barrier to entry on the mainchain will grow.

the tricky part is they are both right!

but they CAN allow the free market to sort this out.

miners have incentives to keep blocks small
and users have incentives to go offchain ( once such a solution is available )

why not remove block limit altogether, code the second layer, and watch the free market come to its own preferred equilibrium!
Last edited:


Mar 14, 2016
I don't really see that blocksize is what it's *really* really about.

IMO, it's about governance. The issue being that for a long time, the idea seemed to be that there is none, just developers and miners and Bitcoin users, all living in a kind of self-balancing chaos.

Now we're starting to wake up to the idea that political tricks can and will be used in the Bitcoin space, just like everywhere where humans do things, and we're having to face up to the idea that some form of governance seems hard to avoid, like it or not.

It's like you woke up one morning and realized you had a king, but no-one could agree who that king was or whether there should be one in the first place.