Quote from: smooth on July 28, 2015, 12:26:09 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 28, 2015, 12:21:09 AM

Quote from: smooth on July 27, 2015, 11:57:12 PM

Quote from: I_bitcoin on July 27, 2015, 11:43:01 PM

Quote from: smooth on July 27, 2015, 11:28:37 PM

Quote from: I_bitcoin on July 27, 2015, 11:13:24 PM

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable". I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing. Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all.

i wonder what all those guys will say next year when the Blockstream guys want to change the code for SC's and LN if Gavin objects.

Sidechains can be done with a soft fork, which means all they need to do is sign up miners (and of course find customers who want to use the side chain). It doesn't require a global consensus.

But if SC, and also LN, needs a block size increase in any case (source, source2), doesn't this mean that introducing SC implies an hard-fork?