What would be so bad about hitting the higher (and constantly increasing) limit earlier than historical extrapolation would predict? [not that I think that's likely, but still]
Then fees would be more than what's suggested in my paper. What would be wrong with that [in the unlikely event it happens]? In fact, it would just be something like the realization of the "high" growth curve shown here:
There are several "transactional demands" modelled in the above graph. They would all work fine with BIP101. It's just that in the case of the "high growth" curve, the fee market might begin to be affected by the block size limit, rather than strictly due to economic supply and demand.
How do you propose this is "shooting yourself in the foot?"
To then go back to our previous argument, let's pretend that your 8 MBs blocks get filled a year before your scheduled doubling then what happens?
Then fees would be more than what's suggested in my paper. What would be wrong with that [in the unlikely event it happens]? In fact, it would just be something like the realization of the "high" growth curve shown here:
I guess my point is that modeling transactional demand based on historical growth is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.
There are several "transactional demands" modelled in the above graph. They would all work fine with BIP101. It's just that in the case of the "high growth" curve, the fee market might begin to be affected by the block size limit, rather than strictly due to economic supply and demand.
How do you propose this is "shooting yourself in the foot?"
Here is what I'm thinking: considering you are hell bent on selling the world on the value of the Bitcoin payment network, do you reasonably believe that Bitcoin is gonna make it to Paypal's level of TPS only in 2024? What if we get there less than 5 years from now? Is this really "unlikely"? I honestly don't think so especially if you and others have your way and attempt to fit every single transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. Remember that "supply creates its own demand".
My concern is that I'm not sure it is safe for the decentralization of the network to try to handle 32mb per blocks within 2020, much less 64. In my mind this would necessarily imply an important if not dangerous decrease in the range of entities who are able to run full nodes. I don't want to hear anything about the amount of nodes as it is not a reliable indicator. As much as cypherdoc would like to believe that an individual running multiple nodes improves the decentralization of the network this is obviously not the case. Finally I'm also worried we would find ourselves in a much worse spot than we already are in regards to mining centralization.
My point is this reliance on block size increase as a scaling solution is a slippery road. One that if we do not travel through cautiously could seriously hinder the security of the network and ultimately result in turning Bitcoin into pale copy of Ripple.