Quote from: Quantus on February 04, 2015, 02:18:45 PM

Quote from: theymos on February 04, 2015, 04:42:47 AM

Quote from: freedomno1 on February 04, 2015, 01:38:20 AM

Not too sure but I think the reason we can't just do 2mb instead of 1 is because we would need to fork again
Throwing it at 20mb should resolve the issue for quite some time.

What I support most strongly is that we do substantially-delayed hard forks with conservative values. Then doing hard forks regularly isn't such a big issue.

For example, Bitcoin Core can be immediately modified to increase the max block size to 2 MB on a specific date 2 years from now. I think that pretty much everyone would be basically OK with this max block size (and even higher values might be widely acceptable). By the time the change actually takes effect in 2 years, everyone will already have upgraded because very few people use 2-year-old software. Businesses and users won't have to go out of their way to choose one fork over another, and so there will be less room for messiness.

Then if a really nice academic study convincingly arguing that 5 MB blocks are safe is published 1 week after the 2-year-delayed change is added, another 2-year-delayed change can be added right away with very little extra cost. After ~2 years, the max block size will increase to 2 MB, and then a week later change to 5 MB.

Yes, 2 years is a long time. But I'm confident that Bitcoin will survive that long with 1 MB blocks.

This, I'm with this guy.

The problem with waiting too long however is that it will stunt decentralized projects like Lighthouse and open bazaar which are limited to 1MB.

https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse/faq#max-pledges

684 to 1k (with further optimizations) max participants cannot compete with kickstarter or indiegogo and will make many fundraisers unusable in a decentralized fashion.