The technique has sparked debate due to concerns it might induce centralization pressure by increasing block frequency and potentially harm the network. Critics argue that this approach could provide short-term benefits, such as lower fees due to increased block space, at the expense of long-term sustainability. It is feared that miners might be incentivized to exploit these conditions for immediate rewards, disadvantaging future participants and favoring larger miners through enhanced block frequency.

Contrarily, the Forward Blocks proposal outlines mechanisms intended to mitigate these risks. It clarifies that increased block frequency applies only to the compatibility chain, where block content is deterministic and not subject to miner manipulation, thus not exerting centralization pressure. The proposal actually suggests reducing the block frequency on the forward block chain, aiming to decrease centralization forces. Furthermore, it introduces an elastic block size adjustment mechanism designed to deter users or miners from excessively expanding the block size for personal gain. This system ensures that any attempt to significantly increase the block size would incur costs far outweighing the potential benefits, with the block size set to adjust downwards after such artificial fee pressures subside.

Another point of contention is the notion that faster block issuance on the compatibility chain might lead to increased miner rewards. The paper counters this argument by stating that the total issuance remains unaffected by the block frequency, thereby nullifying concerns over potential reward imbalances.

In essence, the Forward Blocks strategy seeks to upgrade Bitcoin's protocol to support larger effective block sizes while remaining fully compatible with nodes that have not upgraded. This approach aims to preserve the network's integrity by maintaining open options for scalability solutions, despite the complexities and potential risks associated with implementing such changes. The discourse emphasizes the importance of critiquing proposals like Forward Blocks based on their merits and contents rather than resorting to superficial judgments influenced by social media perceptions.