Quote from: NewLiberty on February 17, 2015, 02:05:21 PM

This is where my conversation with Gavin fell apart. He was not able to acknowledge the concept of a too-high limit. His reasoning was that since the limit was only one-sided (blocks with size above it are prevented) that it couldn't be too high.

If the miners still control which transactions to include in blocks than ultimately they decide upon the limit. Is your concern more to deal with the miners and you prefer the developers to impose restrictions upon the market to remove the ability for miners to process more transactions?

Quote from: ghdp on February 17, 2015, 02:32:20 PM

Can anyone direct me to the BIP for the gigablockchain proposal ?

All I can find is a blog post from one developer saying he made tests with 20 MB blocks on one computer on the testnet and that it was fine, plus a spreadsheet showing that if one multiplies the previous line by two the result is that you can quickly have a cell that contains an integer greater than 1E9.

Anyone ?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

There isn't one and it is clear that Gavin is still at the stage of floating around ideas carefully to test assumptions, hear criticism, listen to other suggestions, and study his proposal before introducing a formal BIP.

Another reason I am liking a dynamic approach more than a static one now is this has been discussed Ad nauseum over years already. Going through a hard fork seems to be painfully tedious and we better just make it the right combination of flexible and simple so we don't have to revisit this in a year.