Quote from: Peter R on August 17, 2015, 07:58:03 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 17, 2015, 07:45:35 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 17, 2015, 07:28:18 PM

I think Erdogan's insight into the game theory behind the block size limit was correct.

But to recognize his insight, I think we need to stop thinking in terms of "valid blocks" and start thinking in terms of "valid transactions." All blocks that are composed exclusively of valid transactions are valid.

Now instead of thinking that only Core and XT exist, imagine that there are dozens (and in the future possibly hundreds) of competing implementations of Bitcoin. Each implementation has its own rules for what block size it will build upon. From this viewpoint, the "effective limit" is the size of the largest block that's ever been included in the Blockchain. If a miner wants to create a larger block (e.g., to collect more fees), then he has to weigh the chances that his block is orphaned with his desire to create a larger block. If we imagine that the block size limit across the network forms some distribution as shown in the chart labelled "NEW THINKING" below, then, since the miner can't be 100% sure what this distribution is, it is rational for him to use the tip-toe method to minimize risk.

I notice you did not reply or comment on my opinion of you guys solutions... Maybe you missed it, maybe you don't care to answer? Either way I'd be curious to better understand the logic behind your proposal.

...

I honestly don't know what you're asking me. What you quoted seemed like substance-less hand-wavving to me.

All we're proposing is to return to the design proposed in the Bitcoin white paper where "nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spend" (#5):

Furthermore, I do not take Bitcoin's success as inevitable. It may fail. Right now, I see the biggest risk as developer centralization. The risk of miner centralization due to adjusting an anti-spam measure seems minor in comparison.

Minor? Surely you've missed this post

Quote

Bitcoin is already centralized. Do you realize that a cabal of a half-dozen people (I'm not talking about the developers) have the power, even if they have yet to exercise it, to arbitrarily control bitcoin? That this power also rests with anyone who controls the networks used by this cabal, which is presently confined to a small number of datacenters? That if they were in the US all it would take is a couple of national security letters for full control over the bitcoin network? I assure you the Chinese government has much stronger strings to pull.
The story of bitcoin over the last two years has been struggling hard to keep bitcoin decentralized in step with wider usage. In this effort we are floundering -- bitcoin scales far better today than it did in early 2013 (at which time it couldn't have even supported today's usage), but centralization pressures have been growing faster still.
That is a story that most people who work on bitcoin scalability can relate to, but which doesn't seem to be commonly understood among the casual userbase.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h7eei/greg_luke_adam_if_xt_takes_over_and_wins_the/cu53eq3

Substance-less? Your whole argument and proposal is based on substance-less arguments and assumptions. I explicitly show why the idea that having more people deciding on an arbitrary number "because free-market" is utterly broken and totally ignores the dynamics at stake.