I haven't read this thread much at all, so maybe this has already been said, but I've been noticing a lot of people saying things like, "If the block size isn't raised, then that would be bad because ..." But just wanting larger blocks isn't a good argument for increasing the max block size. By far the most important issue is what the network can support. We're just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that the network's capacity is limited and fees will probably always be larger than many people want.
Exactly what block size the network can support is very much debatable. I currently think that 10 MB would be fine and 50 MB would be too much, though these are mostly just feelings. There should be more rigorous study of the actual limits of the network. (Gavin's done some nice work on the software/hardware front, though I'm still worried about the capabilities of typical Internet connections, and especially how they'll increase over time.)
Exactly what block size the network can support is very much debatable. I currently think that 10 MB would be fine and 50 MB would be too much, though these are mostly just feelings. There should be more rigorous study of the actual limits of the network. (Gavin's done some nice work on the software/hardware front, though I'm still worried about the capabilities of typical Internet connections, and especially how they'll increase over time.)
It's not just wanting bigger blocks. There is a reason behind that. The bigger blocks are needed if we want a bigger bitcoin net-worth overall. That brings a lot of good things to the ecosystem in form of development and innovation.
What the network can support is subject to technological development and innovation. This is not a mechanical issue where you try to fit a square into a round hole. While technology also has its limitations, there is a lot of room for improving it. Just a few years ago we were all watching low quality youtube clips, while now we can watch 1080p videos. Playing heavy 3d graphics games on our smartphones is another example of technology that is developing and that hasn't hit its cap.
Also since I'm also a hobbyist miner please give me full 10MB blocks right now and I will invest part of my earnings in setting up full nodes with tons of HDD space available
Not raising the block limit because of a technical reason which can be solved is simply wrong in my view.
Oh look, RoadStress suddenly dropped his previous ad hom attack strategy when addressing the sysop! I'm shocked...I expected RS to accuse Thermos of being a master scammer (because his forum advertises/discusses ASICs, Ponzis, etc), as well as being an altcoin shill (because he once said something nice about Monero).
Bitcoin's net-worth overall will increase regardless of transaction volume simply because it has the 1st mover, digital reserve currency advantages and status. It doesn't need, nor should we seek, a monopoly on digital currency, because a Nash distribution is of more economic utility than top-heavy ones. Bitcoin has a natural monopoly on high-value wealth preservation and transfers, not retail point-of-sale, paywalls, or tipping.
The hubristic Bitcoin2 project seeks to sacrifice current use cases and users for the hope of gaining future uses and users.
That is trading a bird in hand for two in the bush, and fixing what is not broken. Two famously bad ideas.
Relying of the desirability of future pruning/compression mechanisms still in the vapor stage to fix 20MB blocks' undesirable effects is also a bad idea.
This logic of "we have to break the network to save the network" is appalling. We need to get this right, not rush and act in haste.
First, we must wait and see how the infrastructure and ecosystem react/adapt to scarcity. Without this crucial empirical data, we cannot make informed future decisions about ideal block sizing. We cannot risk a civil war between BTC1 and BTC2 camps by forcing the issue prematurely (but if I were actually anti-BTC and pro-alt, I'd relish such a Great Schism).
Second, we must use the results of the experiment with 1MB scarcity to decide on a preliminary blocksize increase, to somewhere between 2MB and 10MB.
20MB blocks can then be considered, if and only if the community, pruning/compression mechanisms, and TOR/DSL are ready to support them.
As a compromise, I'll support an increase to 2MB ASAP, on the condition that we then maintain that limit until facts about market reaction to block real estate scarcity are ascertained.