Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.
As it happens, 1MB seemed to have been at least quite fortuitous for us, and I wonder if it were not somewhat well considered when Satoshi made the setting as opposed to the perception promulgated by some that he pulled a random number out his ass.
In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future. To me.
As it happens, 1MB seemed to have been at least quite fortuitous for us, and I wonder if it were not somewhat well considered when Satoshi made the setting as opposed to the perception promulgated by some that he pulled a random number out his ass.
In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future. To me.
Exactly this. Intentionally or not, 1MB turned out to be a serendipitous choice. Now it has ossified and is ready for the next layers to be built on its solid foundation.
I favor Adam Backamoto's extension block proposal.
The 1MB blocksize limit reminds me of the old 640k limit in DOS.
Rather than destroy Window's interoperability with the rich/valuable legacy of 8088 based software, that limit was extended via
Before resorting to the nuclear option of a contentious hard fork, we should attempt to achieve the desired result with soft forks.
:really off topic but I so rarely can add to the discussions.
Actually in order to address memory out of the address range of the cpu bus a "page swap" method was used which had been used on mainframes for many years, this was called expanded memory and was in 16k chunks which was very slow. with the 286 line extended memory was introduced and the cpu had to go into extended mode in order to access it. That of course if my memory serves me.