Quote from: brg444 on August 30, 2015, 09:49:51 PM

Quote from: Klestin on August 30, 2015, 09:00:41 PM

Let's start simple. Can you give a rational argument against immediately raising the block size cap to 8MB?

If you wanna play this game I can: it will effectively retire a number of nodes from the network. It is a slippery road opening the door for more unadvised decision encouraged by populist movements. The effects on securty and the network are unknown and have yet to receive any legitimate testing.

There are plenty of arguments really.

Or we could just stop playing games and you could tell us exactly what increase in blocksize you would be comfortable with. If, as I suspect, the answer is zero, please then admit that your position is untenable. Because even if you do support the notion of forcing a significant number of transactions off-chain via lightning network or something similar, LN itself still needs a larger blocksize to function. A larger blocksize is almost unavoidable and none of your arrogant "only I'm smarterer enough to have a valid opinion" troll BS is going to change that. Introducing LN to the wider Bitcoin ecosystem is also a much larger change than a moderate blocksize increase. The effects on security and the network with LN are also unknown and is also yet to receive any legitimate testing because it doesn't exist yet.

You can play the "slippery slope" card that it will lead to centralisation, but the rest of us can play the same slippery slope card that a permanent 1MB blocksize will lead to an elitist, niche safe-haven that only benefits early adopters. One way or another, it's almost inevitable the blocksize is increasing because the pressure for it to happen will never go away unless another solution is found. A small handful of people who think that Bitcoin is here solely to benefit them and them alone have no way of stopping a global populace looking for an alternative to the corrupt banking system. The numbers are simply against you. You can either contribute to the blocksize increase in a constructive fashion, or just keep acting like a belligerent troll (but we've already got iCEBREAKER for that, so it seems a tad redundant).

Most of us would now like to have a sensible discussion on where to strike the balance between decentralisation and capacity because we recognise that both are important. If you want to keep having the same tired old conversation about how decentralisation is the only thing that's important (because it provides tremendous benefit to you) and capacity is somehow irrelevant (because it doesn't benefit you), go talk to some people who actually want to listen to it.