Quote from: ArticMine on September 06, 2015, 02:50:45 AM

Quote from: ssmc2 on September 06, 2015, 02:24:17 AM

Quote from: ArticMine on September 06, 2015, 01:38:50 AM

I voted never simply because of the 1 MB blocksize limit. This currently prevents any growth.

Because scalability will never be resolved, right? Roll Eyes

Well it has not been resolved since this issue was first raised in 2010. Furthermore the current climate in the community is way less conducive to a resolution that it was before. I have been following this issue for well over three years.

If Satoshi paid attention to this comment, then we would not have to see this controversy today...

Quote from: caveden on November 20, 2010, 01:19:29 PM

Only recently I learned about this block size limit.

I understand not putting any limit might allow flooding. On the other hand, the smaller your block, the faster it will propagate to network (I suppose.. or is there "I've got a block!" sort of message sent before the entire content of the block?), so miners do have an interest on not producing large blocks.

I'm very uncomfortable with this block size limit rule. This is a "protocol-rule" (not a "client-rule"), what makes it almost impossible to change once you have enough different softwares running the protocol. Take SMTP as an example... it's unchangeable.

I think we should schedule a large increase in the block size limit right now while the protocol rules are easier to change. Maybe even schedule an infinite series of increases, as we can't really predict how many transactions there will be 50 years from now.

Honestly, I'd like to get rid of such rule. I find it dangerous. But I can't think of an easy way to stop flooding without it, though.