all over. and it would be the same at 8MB:
So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?
even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.
so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue? imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.
So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.
I don't think it's confusing at all. My take: I want to see a larger blocksize limit. To show my support for this, I supported (and still support) Gavin's 20 MB proposal and XT. But I would rather stick with Core. Thus, if a BIP for 8 MB + 100%/2yr growth can win over the Chinese miners and some developers of Core, then that's even better.
Your comment that Gavin (or Cypherdoc) is "changing his mind" seems disingenuous to me. This is a process of building consensus. It's a sort of "decentralized negotiation." As a community, we keep tweaking the details while people voice their concerns, hoping that we can appease as many groups as possible.
My aplogies Peter, I don't think you saw what I intended to communicate there. I was really illustrating the absurdity of cypherdoc's position, who really was changing his mind on the basis of authoritative arguments, at his own admission. I am in favor of scaling up, in favor of blocksize increase as a can-kicking exercise, and in favor of coming to a consensus about it. What I reject is the way this issue has been presented to the community: make your mind up, and fast, otherwise we'll all end up with MikeHearnCoin. cypherdoc was a vocal proponent of that strategy, and it is selfish, potentially a danger to the spirit of the system, and therefore unwise.
You call it decentralised negotiation. I don't negotiate with people who try to hector a community into a negotiation they didn't seek themselves.
But polls show that Gavin has a clear majority... its just certain core devs who object and not on technical grounds. And most of them are working for a single organization. How is that "hectoring a community"?