Quote from: Grinder on February 05, 2015, 02:01:20 PM

Quote from: RoadStress on February 05, 2015, 12:13:00 AM

Gavin perfectly understand the economics of the block fee. You do not seem to understand that a block size of 1MB hinders and blocks services from running on top of blockchain. I have already pointed out that project Lighthouse is having issue because of the 1MB block size limit. Nobody seems to talk about the subject and I don't understand why. Are you happy that the Lighthouse project is hindered? I'm definitely not!

There is currently room for up to 500 KB, which is enough for most kind of contracts. As long as the current usage does not even fill the blocks it's unlikely that increasing the available space by 20x is going to increase the use by more than 20x. This has not been Gavin's argument for increasing the size either.

Increasing the size may be a good idea some time in the future but, until the usage actually increases, it's a bad idea.

Have you even read about the Lighthouse project? One of the main points for the fork is that with the current cap we are not only limiting the amount of transactions but the development of possible services.

Actually you're wrong. Increasing it in the future will be very hard to do, if not impossible. The more people are on board the harder it will be to fork.

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 05, 2015, 01:51:26 PM

Quote from: LaudaM on February 05, 2015, 01:31:19 PM

The worst part of it all is that the current limit doesn't even support 5 TPS. According to D&T it is even lower.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

Yeah, at best 2 to 4 tps using 1MB. That's even worse than I thought.

For some reason people are stuck at the present. They don't realize that doing a hardfork in a few years will almost be impossible.