Quote from: cinnamon_carter on February 19, 2015, 12:58:59 AM

I may out of my league on this thread ...but at least my post is on topic.....here it goes....

(basically a more detailed justification on my short post several pages ago)

I am personally against this fork (that looks like it is going to happen regardless) since it is not just about going to 20 mb blocks but the code that is going to ramp the block size up bigger and bigger over time ... eventually a couple dozen blocks are going to be the size of what the blockchain was two years ago.

Here is the basic scenario as I see it (I'm for the fork FWIW).

If there is traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks can grow to that size, the blocks grow to that size and the system continues to function.

If there is traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks cannot grow to that size, then the system fails.

If there is not traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks can grow to that size, the blocks grow up to the size of the traffic it takes to fill them, and the system continues to function. A very rare block mined by a troll might grow to that size, but expect less than five of those a year.

If there is not traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks cannot grow to that size, the blocks grow to the size of the traffic it takes to fill them, and the system continues to function.

Do we fundamentally disagree on how often we should expect blocks to be mined by trolls? 'Cause I don't see anybody else risking his return on investment in hashing power by growing blocks needlessly without having legitimate transactions to fill them.