Charts
DataOn-chain
VIP
Market Cap
API
Rankings
CoinOSNew
CoinClaw🦞
Language
  • 简体中文
  • 繁体中文
  • English
Leader in global market data applications, committed to providing valuable information more efficiently.

Features

  • Real-time Data
  • Special Features
  • AI Grid

Services

  • News
  • Open Data(API)
  • Institutional Services

Downloads

  • Desktop
  • Android
  • iOS

Contact Us

  • Chat Room
  • Business Email
  • Official Email
  • Official Verification

Join Community

  • Telegram
  • Twitter
  • Discord

© Copyright 2013-2026. All rights reserved.

简体繁體English
|Legacy
BTCBTC
💲75760.25
+
1.54%
ETHETH
💲2312.73
+
1.22%
SOLSOL
💲85.23
+
0.82%
USDCUSDC
💲0.9995
-
0%
RAVERAVE
💲2.00
+
251.68%
XRPXRP
💲1.42
+
0.71%

BitMEX Research
BitMEX Research|10月 19, 2025 09:34
> Increasing Blocksize increases centralization, again, diminishing its role as a more perfect form of money. (Read, “Blocksize Wars”) Yes, one should read "The Blocksize War". The OP_RETURN size limit has been 1MB for well over a decade. A recent version of Bitcoin Core has increased the OP_RETURN relay policy filter limit, not the actual size limit. This recent change is not a blocksize limit increase. In Chapter 2 of "The Blocksize War" it explains one of the key reasons why we need a blocksize limit, because otherwise the chain will be full of loads of spam or as the book puts it "music collection or encrypted documents". The small blockers won the war. We have a reasonable blocksize limit in place. This protects us from the spam. Filters are not effective at stopping transactions people want to make. Only a tiny minority of nodes need to ignore the filters and then the filters wont work at all. We should not fight an unwinnable war. And to the extent the filters do work at reducing the propagation of transactions people want to make, that causes centralization pressure, pretty much the same kind of centralization pressure the small blockers fought to stop in the blocksize war. Filters are not a robust long term solution to fighting against mining incentives or fighting against spam. Bitcon should not rely on ineffective measures like filters. The blocksize limit is that robust long term solution. Chapter 2 Extract > Small blockers also believed full blocks were inevitable anyway. After all, if blockspace was available, why not use it up? Anyone could store anything they liked in the blockchain, for instance their music collection or encrypted documents. Demand for cheap, highly-replicated storage was essentially unbounded, they argued. Asking for the limit to increase above expected demand was therefore nonsense. Indeed, one person could easily fill all the space up themselves. The retort to this point from the larger blockers circled back to the mining incentive argument; miners would not do this, they claimed, miners would not let this amount of data in the blocks.(BitMEX Research)
+4
Mentioned
|
APP
Windows
Mac
Share To

X

Telegram

Facebook

Reddit

CopyLink

|
APP
Windows
Mac
Share To

X

Telegram

Facebook

Reddit

CopyLink

Timeline

11月 17, 12:24Send Bitcoin via iMessage
11月 16, 23:58The Current State of Bitcoin Interoperability
11月 13, 20:36The history of each Bitcoin blockchain transaction
11月 13, 00:35IBM's new processor accelerates the progress of fault-tolerant quantum computing
11月 12, 14:30Satoshi Nakamoto is a time-traveling AI from the future
11月 12, 01:44The US is about to launch in-app map display for Bitcoin payments.
11月 10, 21:39Cash App launches a new Bitcoin map
11月 10, 17:54Credit card spending converted into Bitcoin
11月 10, 15:26Changes in the relationship between Bitcoin and fiat currency
11月 07, 23:29The first Bitcoin Lightning payment sent via satellite in outer space

HotFlash

|
APP
Windows
Mac
Share To

X

Telegram

Facebook

Reddit

CopyLink

APP
Windows
Mac

X

Telegram

Facebook

Reddit

CopyLink

Hot Reads