Quote from: onemorexmr on August 28, 2015, 12:33:30 AM

Quote from: madjules007 on August 28, 2015, 12:25:52 AM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 27, 2015, 11:54:28 PM

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late Wink

I don't see any technical reasoning behind this. You're just using an invented sense of urgency to say "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!11!11!!! BIP 101!!!!111!"

If you think an algorithm is short-sighted, why do you support one that increases the limit based on Moore's Law? Huh

Can you address my point that capacity needs are linked to growth in transaction volume? After six years, we haven't come close to hitting capacity at 1MB on average. So your "transaction backlog" point is moot. If you agree that we don't have a reliable way to predict future transaction volume, why would we pick an arbitrary limit with no basis in reality, without any discussion of the technical implications for the protocol/network -- hardware, bandwidth, network security/bloat.....?

There is ample time -- just take a look at BIP 100. The fact that people have discussed this in theory for several years before it ever became a realistic issue is totally irrelevant. Within two months of the XT client release, we now have several BIPs that aim to increase block size, and miners are now voting to make their preferences clear among the current proposals.

Fear mongering.....

rofl - stop screaming.. you sound childish.

Quote from: madjules007 on August 28, 2015, 12:25:52 AM

Can you address my point that capacity needs are linked to growth in transaction volume?

i'd love to see a way how to archive that?

as long as there isnt a way i prefer a solution which tries to set it to the max and let miners decide how much they really want to put into a block.

How to achieve that? Start by offering an explanation for why we should use anything else but observed transaction volume to determine any need to increase block size. Sorry, but "what if x causes massive adoption immediately" isn't good enough. As Satoshi himself stated, we can raise the block size limit as needed, when needed.

Seriously? You haven't addressed anything that I've said and you keep repeating yourself that we need to do "this or that" without any technical explanation or logic. And I am the one acting childish?

Great, I understand what you want because you keep repeating it. Can you explain why we should be persuaded to your point of view? Or this is just based on feeling? Serious question.

I support putting the decision regarding when to increase limits in the hands of the miners, because consensus is paramount. That's one reason I support BIP 100.