That is scary. March 2016 is looking more and more that it might be too late.
But I'm sure the blockstream guys only see the emergence of fee pressure that will push people onto sidechains.
The whole blocksize debate has been theoretical so far. But once people's transactions start to backlog the discussion will take a very different turn. People want to be able to transaction directly with Bitcoin in an affordable manner. That is the entire ethos of the project.
tvbcof
marcus
iCE
kazuki
I'm afraid it is you who cannot comprehend that there are a big disadvantages with big blocks.
Brute force (increasing block size limit) is not a solution .. we need something smarter than "The bigger
stone the bigger hammer"
edit: 100 kg hammer is not practical :-)
edit2: we need jackhammer
No one is suggesting massive jackhammer blocks to put every coffee cup transaction on the planet into the blockchain.
Yes there is a balance between everything on the blockchain and something smarter.
But something smarter still requires much larger than 1MB blocks, and 20MB blocks is in no manner a dumb jackhammer that kicks people off the network. I have a crappy home network and will still be able to function fine with 20MB blocks.
Something smarter is also not available today. Options that do not exist and are ready today are not solutions to be discussed. 20MB blocks provides breathing room to find a smart balance. That balance BTW will very likely settle on even larger blocks.
Not creating that breathing room starves Bitcoin today of usage, usage that it needs to constantly grow.
