Mike Hearn

Blocksize Debate at the Breaking Point

Whether the block size should be increased to 20MB has created more controversy than any other question in Bitcoin’s recent history. For some, it is an urgent and necessary step in Bitcoin’s evolution. Their view is that leaving the block size at 1MB would be irresponsible inaction with potentially catastrophic consequences. Others see increasing the block size as unnecessary and a dangerous first step down a slippery slope towards a more centralized Bitcoin.

We were joined by Mike Hearn, along with Gavin Andresen the most outspoken supporter of a block size increase. He is also the creator of Bitcoin XT, a modified fork of Bitcoin Core, that may become the vehicle for the push for bigger blocks if no agreement is reached regarding Bitcoin Core. Don’t miss this crucial conversation!

Topics we discussed in this episode
  • What would happen if blocks started being consistently full
  • Whether bigger blocks create a centralization risk
  • Why Bitcoin core development has become pervaded with toxic division
  • What Bitcoin XT is and how it differs from Bitcoin Core
  • The roadmap ahead and how a transition to BitcoinXT would occur
  • Update on Lighthouse
Like this? Spread the love!
  • tvwweek

    At least 20 minutes (as far as I got so far) of pure panic from the bloatcoin crowd. Funny and pathetic. Suck it, guys. Sidechains FTW!

    • I really don’t think that sidechains will solve this problem.

    • Yes neither does telling us to suck it.

      How ironic that *you* would use the words “funny and pathetic” to describe us.

      • tvwweek

        You two went through the entire interview lobbing softballs at the guy and let him get away with laughable assertions completely unchallenged and at best with perhaps one or two feeble objections. I get it, you guys are bloatchain enthusiast as well, but you seem to try to pass yourselves off as interviewers when you are nothing but a couple of two-bit propagandists. You suck (very nearly literally in this interview at least.) Then again so do almost all of these Bitcoin so-called report sites. I suppose you should get a pass since the kinds of people who would not be put off by tough questions are probably busy doing real work.

        • I think we’ve made it pretty clear in recent episodes that we agree the block size should be increased. Heck @crainbf:disqus is even going around giving talks about this. Shouldn’t be any surprise there. But good on you for ‘figuring it out’.

          And by the way, we’re not journalists, who’s opinions are meant to be ‘fair and balanced’. We have opinions and express them freely on the show.

          You think we’re being too soft and one-sided? Alright. Tell us who you think we should have on the show to talk about this.

          • tvwweek

            Point taken about being not being journalists. I’m going to do something I almost never do and apologize.

            My firm belief is that whether by accident or design you guys are trying to destroy Bitcoin. I feel strongly about it and should reserve my venom for bitcointalk. See you-all on the battlefield.

          • It’s very flattering that you have such a high opinion of our influence to think that we could constitute a threat to Bitcoin. Certainly, neither of us has any such intentions. We both hold bitcoin, are deeply involved in the community and Epicenter Bitcoin is even a Bitcoin-only business.

            But we also believe that facing the challenges and flaws (and, yes, they exist) of Bitcoin openly and in an unbiased way is the best way to go about it.

            That being said, you’re certainly right that this was not an ‘unbiased’ episode and having someone who represents the counter argument could have been valuable.