Quote from: mmeijeri on September 09, 2015, 04:03:11 PM

I like Adam Back's 2-4-8 proposal better, as it provides a gradual transition. Note that Bitfury's support for BIP 100 was based on their assessment that increasing the limit to 8MB right now is too fast. Mark Friedenbach has also warned that while 8MB is likely safe with current networking hardware, it hasn't been sufficiently tested.

I wouldn't mind accelerating Adam's schedule so that 8MB is reached in 3 years, not 6.

After giving it a second thought, I think that "accelerated programmed 2-4-8" you mentioned might be the best way moving forward.

If in the next 2-3 years the demand for a "single PoW-secured transparent unified ledger runnable by users at home" surges tremendously, while the home-based internet infrastructure allows to satisfy that demand, Bitcoin might begin loosing momentum to its closest PoW competitor, which has 4x the theoretical capacity, while at the same time being faster (confirming) and arguably more convenient network.

Regarding BIP100, the static limit there is poorly specified and is obviously too high to be considered safe for the next several years. It opens the network up for an attack by some rogue miners who might be interested in voting the home-based population of Bitcoin out of the picture.

Smaller static limit (like 2MB) would necessitate having this discussion again fairly soon. In the constant debate about the issue we may begin melting the idea of the limit and instead achieve a diametrically opposite result (no limit at all).

All things considered, the solution space has been reduced to a single static limit of 8MB with a gentle yet quick enough schedule to achieve it. QED