Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 23, 2015, 07:50:21 PM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on August 23, 2015, 07:43:43 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 23, 2015, 03:01:17 PM

This is where a good dynamic scheme, implemented in Core to the XT fork schedule, could provide a solution.

Your scenario would play out oppositely, the 8 MB chain could end up overwhelmed with all sorts of attacks, while the dynamically sized chain would scale above 8 MB to handle it.

I dont understand why is the 8 MB block size such a big issue?

Why would big attacks happen at 8MB but not at 1MB , they are just 2 arbitrary numbers with no significance ? I don't get it, please explain.

Unfortunately, you're asking me to resolve an incongruity that I did not state.

I said:

8 MB vs dynamic block resizing

I did not say:

8 MB vs 1MB

If you would like to understand, please re-read the post I was replying to more carefully. I would only end up regurgitating it more or less verbatim anyway, so everything you need is there. Ask if you have specific questions regarding the details, once you have a handle on what I am actually arguing. Please don't ask me questions again before that point.

I do not know of any dynamic block resizing client with consensus from the miners.
When there is some code compiled and running feel free to tell us.