Block size isn't important

[Hydrogen]

Block size isn't important.

What is important, is how many transactions per second 2MB and larger block sizes can yield.

And whether those gains outweigh the added vulnerability & other negatives associated with them?

Am I right in thinking this?

 

I still don't understand why people cite "2MB blocks" as if that by itself is self justifying.

If the N64 having a 64 bit bus didn't make it superior to the original playstation, which was a 32 bit machine.

Should I assume 2MB blocks (without other supporting stats and data) will solve every problem bitcoin faces?

[jonald_fyookball]

well I agree -- almost all of us want Bitcoin to scale.

But we don't all agree on the best way to do it, nor do we
agree on other priorities of the network, nor do we agree
on what kinds of centralization are most important to avoid.

My guiding principles:

1. It's much more important to avoid institutions becoming the guardians
of who can use the network for transactions than it is to make running
a full node highly affordable.

2. On chain and off chain are both fine, as long as free market can
decide (no block limits forcing this)

3. Its better to let Bitcoin scale on chain unhindered now, than
try to centrally plan what Bitcoin needs to be 30 years from now.
There is no need to worry about fees paying for security for several
decades and certainly a mistake to constrict throughput now for
that reason.

4.  Bitcoin was always meant to be electronic cash, not primarily
a settlement network.  Bitcoin needs to be able to handle transactions
big and small.  Treating Bitcoin as a commodity only and not a currency
is highly dubious both in terms of demand as well as security.