A reddit user
sums up the perspectives very neutrally:
Small blocker: Bitcoin cannot scale indefinitely simply by increasing the block size. The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes, and thus the less secure the network is. Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized. Some other solution is needed to move the majority of changes off the blockchain, and we should focus on building that rather than making blocks bigger and bigger. Blockchain can't accept every transaction forever and the sooner we make that change the better.
Big blocker: Bitcoin will probably need more technology to help scaling, but that tech isn't ready yet and won't be for months. For now, the more important priority is to drive growth, and that means expanding capacity. The block size will have to grow eventually, so let's do it now and not start dropping transactions. We should ensure 0-conf continues to work reliably for purchases. New technologies will help make Bitcoin faster and more scalable, but people should use them or not based on their own merits; we shouldn't force people to change the way they transact by letting Bitcoin itself get clogged and expensive to use.
Put differently, one view focuses more on the system, the other focuses more on the users.
So yeah, one perspective insists on focusing on minor temporary short-term usability issues while not paying any attention to the long-term feasibility and security of the system itself. It's just like the television's "elections", where every 4 years the same routinary meaningless jabber fools countless millions of unthinking people into putting their energies and hope into a new icon with a different name and slightly altered slogan.
But it's not even that for most big blockists, as Greg Maxwell
observes:
A year ago I suggested that if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork-- which, while causing harm, wouldn't likely cause irrecoverable harm. It was aggressively opposed by the persons demanding effectively unlimited blocksizes. Subsequently, we figured out how to make a similar increase in direct capacity with segwit while also improving scaling, without the hard fork.
So on this account, I think your binary classification is a bit off. I think a significant portion of people advocating larger blocks don't care about user experience at all (after all, much larger blocks will be devastating to the user experience of running a node) but about being able to justify claims of fantastic upside growth with the most minimal effort possible. A purpose I don't necessarily oppose, but not one we can sell bitcoin's medium to long term future to achieve: this isn't a ponzi scheme.
We have a great invention here, please don't help ruin it by sheer herd stupidity. Yeah, it's hard to contain judgment energies! (Make sure to always withdraw them at the end of the day!)
So, don't succumb to heard mentality. Follow Core blindly?
We all remember that Gavin and Hearn wanted a solution which was more than a can-kick. But that wasn't possible to get through.
2MB is nothing. Because we'll have to settle for a can kick we're guaranteed to spend the next couple of years dealing with the block size limit.
What's Gmazwell's point with bringing this stuff up? Someone disagreed with him back then so Bitcoin has to burn?
If they just introduced BIP101 back then, the community could have spent its precious energy on actually solving problems, rather than bickering.
I don't think gmax ever implied 'bitcoin has to burn' but I don't think people are as interested in "being able to justify claims of fantastic upside growth"
as they are simply in having a clear picture in where we are going and when.
The so called scalability roadmap is vague and it would be much better if there were clear milestones markers with ETAs.
Even if there is not agreement on the best way to scale, anyone publishing a 'scalability roadmap' should provide
a lot of detail IMO if they want people to buy into their vision.
I gave Gmaxwell the benefit of doubt and assumed he was just being stubborn. But it seems like he is missing the point completely about the growth factor. The whole point isn't whether or not Bitcoin will grow 100x in the next couple of years. It's that it won't grow at all unless there is room for it to have growth along those lines. And Bitcoin isn't the only show in town anymore. I think it's the best show in town atm, but that doesn't matter.
Aaaand Fatman ignores everything that's being said and repeats the same old argument once again...
Does the above help?
Maybe I am missing something. I've only got one of those stupid heard-minds you know.
I'll try:
Node operators are not users, users are users. And the current user experience is shit because the system gets clogged up routinely.
"The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes"
This is true, but that doesn't mean that fewer people will run nodes. If Bitcoin attracts more people, more people will run nodes and a larger share of the nodes will be running 24/7 on HQ bandwidth.
"Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized."
A fairly defeatist attitude, but that's not an issue atm and shouldn't matter in this debate.
"Some other solution is needed to move the majority of changes off the blockchain, and we should focus on building that rather than making blocks bigger and bigger. Blockchain can't accept every transaction forever and the sooner we make that change the better."
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why this crap needs to be pushed through now. To use the current issue of growth being limited by the block size limit to shoehorn in a major change in the very nature Bitcoin works is very dangerous. It's not just about the code, it's how the Bitcoin economy reacts to this mechanism. And by forcing this false choice on the community, Core has pushed the miners to act on the block size limit. Now that the miners know that they can veto stuff, how are devs going to push thru the off-chain scaling solutions when the technology is ready? Core are a bunch of amateurs.
