Quote from: I_bitcoin on July 28, 2015, 12:38:59 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, no changes.

I suspect Wladimir was thinking in context of a hardfork vs. context of ongoing blocksize increases chosen by an algorithm. I might not have seen his specific commentary though so I could be wrong. It is hard to keep up with all the goings on nowadays.

He was thinking in the context of any hard fork, and specifically rejecting the notion of him "deciding" to implement a hard fork that is contraversial.

You are never going to get human consensus on an unlimited block size to the point where it isn't controversial. Just isn't going to happen.