Quote from: sardokan on February 23, 2015, 12:35:36 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on February 23, 2015, 12:29:34 PM

Quote from: sardokan on February 23, 2015, 12:20:10 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on February 23, 2015, 11:58:01 AM

People have discussed sidechains and pruning and other suggestions, but the fact is, they will take time to implement to make sure they actually work. A 20MB blocksize is a far more simple solution that will work right now and until I hear something better, that's the one I'll be supporting.

Ok, but, see, we can go for 2-5-8 MB limit (wihtout exponential growth) before we hit the limit, and use the time gained by shooting the can to invent something better

It's not so urgent that our only choice is to implement exponential size growth

What you are saying now is, let's go exponential, maybe we can sustain it.

This is the worst anti-fork argument, since it means you'd want have to have another hard fork each time you need to increase it. If exponential adoption happens, either we find a way to cope with it, or another coin will. Again, there are only two outcomes. Increase the limit, or jump ship when Bitcoin can't cope and grinds to a halt.

No, we will need a hardfork to implement the more intelligent solution that we would have found during the newly bought time.

I think it's better than fuckin' it right now in two clicks because it's easy (or you are paid by USG to fuck it)

Either way, I'm not going to argue too much on this point, since you do recognise that 1MB isn't sufficient and a fork is absolutely needed. That's the main point I'm trying to get across. I'd probably still support the fork if we settled on something like a 10 or 15MB limit, but I wouldn't want to risk going any lower than that unless I saw some really compelling evidence that it would be enough to support any future growth in adoption we might experience. It's fair to say we both agree that something else will need to happen in future to make the whole thing sustainable, but no one knows for sure what that something will be yet.

But mostly I just want to hear why the 1MB fanatics are so desperate to keep repeating the same non-sequitur that they will keep a 1MB limit for themselves and stay on the old chain regardless of what the rest of us do, but still oppose the fork even though it's supposed negative effects will have no bearing on them. They say they don't want small transactions clogging up "their" chain, but at the same time they don't want us to go. It makes no logical sense.