Quote from: Klestin on September 04, 2015, 08:56:56 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 04, 2015, 08:44:08 PM

pragmatically, you are right. However, simply being a bip101 advocate misses the essence of the OP.

Understood. I was mostly replying to the idea of creating another BIP with the cap removed.

What I no longer like about BIP101 is that it makes people worried about committing to something over a 20 year period (even though that's nonsense because we could just as easily fork down in two years as fork up but let's pretend it's not).

The only thing that matters over the next few years for BIP101 is: "Will nodes and miners support up to 8MB blocks or not?" Maybe we should just work on the negotiation for 8 MB.

BIP101's fans can continue to run "BIP101"--they'll just tell themselves:

"Hehehehe by the time 16 MB rolls around, we'll have the small-blockers convinced that bigger blocks was right!"

The small-blockers can run "8-MB only" and tell themselves:

"Mu-haa-haa-haa, we'll show those big-blockers the errors of their ways! We'll see less nodes and more mining centralization and then we'll have evidence to lower the block size! Mu-haa-haa-haa"