Quote from: marky89 on August 30, 2015, 07:08:21 AM

Quote from: knight22 on August 30, 2015, 03:18:42 AM

Quote from: TibanneCat on August 29, 2015, 02:07:26 PM

Quote from: alani123 on August 29, 2015, 11:26:56 AM

We have no evidence to indicate that Moore's law is applicable on bitcoin's blockchain Why would anyone want to force the blockchain expanding at pre-set dates. The concept behind an increasing block size has no basis other than speculating that bitcoin's use will grow (and expecting the new users would want to use in-chain transactions. The vote mechanism of BIP100 is much more rational. It's good that Jeff wants to be open about development so possible weaknesses not thought out in the papers can be addressed while developing.

That is the main issue with 101
I think what Bobby Lee said sounds reasonable

Quote from: https://vip.btcchina.com/page/noticetemplate?id=100

Our perspective is that the Internet today, in China and also globally, is not yet ready for unrestrained, automatic increases of the block size. A global network of bitcoin miners and mining pools requires tremendous levels of network connectivity to relay large blocks around the world in a timely manner. If block sizes get too big, too fast, orphan rates will certainly increase, disadvantaging smaller miners and mining pools. Furthermore, the risks of larger forks would increase substantially, which will cause real devastation to bitcoin. ... For these technical reasons, we strongly believe that adopting BIP 100 is the more responsible choice.

Unbalance or not, we are finally heading toward consensus as BIP100 has 64% support and steadily increasing
not a single block has been mined under BIP101 in the past 24h

Consensus toward miners but not from payment processors and market markers that strongly support BIP101 for obvious reasons. Both should go in an agreement otherwise it's not a consensus, it's a miners take over.

That's not really how bitcoin works. Consensus works because of economic incentives, and forks happen because of hashing power -- not the opinions of Bitpay, etc. which may change now that new alternatives to BIP 101 are emerging. Who are these market makers that you speak of, anyway?

As such:

http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

Almost all of the industry that creates the financial infrastructure are/will support BIP101 for the obvious reason that it gives them predictable room for growth. Some people here don't realize how much this aspect is important for the long term prospect of these businesses. IMO they have more weight than miners in this debate because they are the one that gives usefulness to the coin. There is not a lot incentives for miners to mine a coins unappealing that can't be used properly by the industry in general. It is my belief that they will push aggressively at some point if Core doesn't move quickly. Coinwallet "stress test" is no coincidence and they won't be alone pushing toward that goal. The industry have invested roughly a billion dollar up to date and you can be sure that they won't let their investments being jeopardized with a bad block size growth implementation from a business perspective.