If wumpus thinks blocks should be full, then I'd like to see his reasoning. Gavin has outlined his stance with his
blocksize economics and
scalability roadmap posts. A continuous stream of full blocks isn't something we've tried before and we need to see a really convincing argument to justify attempting it.
Gavin gets it wrong. Big deal.
You know, there's a reason in business, why it's usually not the code-monkeys who get to make strategic decisions.
So far no one has given me a satisfactory response to this:
If the userbase increases and blocks are full, the choices are as follows:
- Pay an average fee and still wait for the next available block that isn't full (which will take longer and longer as more users join, even if you pay a fee)
- Pay an above-average fee and hope that it's more than everyone else is paying (and if you don't guess correctly, wait for the next block)
- Go off chain and hope that whoever you trusted doesn't run off with the coins
- Use another coin
Maybe if you actually phrased it like a question it'd be easier to answer.
And it would certainly be easier for the one who answers to show that the assumptions the question is based on, are flawed.