Block size limit controversy
Argument in favor of increasing the blocksize
- Bigger blocks (more transactions per second)
- Sidechains and Lightning require waiting for development.
Argument in opposition of increasing the blocksize
- A hard fork requires waiting for sufficient consensus.
- Orphan rate amplification, more reorgs and double-spends due to slower propagation speeds.
- European/American pools at more of a disadvantage compared to the Chinese pools[why?]
- No amount of max block size would support all the world's future transactions on the main blockchain (various types of off-chain transactions are the only long-term solution)
- Risk of catastrophic consensus failure[clarification needed]
Damage to decentalization
- Bitcoin is only useful if it is decentralized because centralization requires trust. Bitcoins value proposition is trustlessness.
- The larger the hash-rate a single miner controls, the more centralized Bitcoin becomes and the more trust using Bitcoin requires.
- Running your own full node while mining rather than giving another entity the right to your hash-power decreases the hash-rate of large miners. Those who control hash-power are able to control their own hash power if and only if they run a full node.
- Less individuals who control hash-power will run full nodes if running one becomes more expensive.
- Larger blocks leads to more expensive full nodes.
- Therefore, larger blocks lead to less hashers running full nodes, which leads to centralized entities having more power, which makes Bitcoin require more trust, which weakens Bitcoins value proposition.
|Entity||Supports Larger Blocks||Supports Hard Fork|