Quote from: knight22 on September 16, 2015, 03:59:57 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 16, 2015, 03:50:57 PM

Quote from: yayayo on September 16, 2015, 03:43:13 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 16, 2015, 03:35:14 PM

Quote from: trashman43 on September 16, 2015, 07:21:30 AM

i don't like the options.

i chose "be raised in some way" but really my opinion is "be raised in some way carefully and gradually with emphasis on security over cheap fees"

right

~80% of users think it should be raised in some way, i think we can all agree that at the very least it could be raised carefully and gradually

~20% of users think "stay the same for now", which seems to indacte that they will vote "should be raised in some way" given some time or the right conditions full blocks >80% of blocks?

It's good to see 0% think it should never be increased

It's not suprising at all. The critical point is not if, but how much and in which way.

I'm for block size increases as well, provided that decentralization is not hurt. Because without a healthy, decentralized network Bitcoin is worth zero. Therefore I'm strongly opposing BIP101, because it is an extremist position that does not care about decentralization at all.

Successfully scaling Bitcoin requires an upper layer that reduces data load on the blockchain in addition to small increases to maximum block size.

ya.ya.yo!

yes i agree, all this discussion has lead me to the same conclusion.
after some improvement to reduce the amount of redundant traffic on the network, block size limit should increase dynamically based on keeping a small but constant pressure on fees. bacily something like retargeting block size to keep avg block size at 50%full with some ultimate upper limit to make sure its never prohibitively expensive to run a full node at home. and this upper limit should be adjusted upward as internet connectivity / PC get better.

Miners resources are already scarce and this should be enough to put a pressure on fees. Not an artificial limit. They are already free to limit the block size they mine and drop transactions that does not contain enough fees. Miners should compete to provide the most efficient resources to the network which allows a competitive fee market.

for miners it wouldn't be a big deal to consume more then 1GB of data every 10mins, but this in turn make bitcoin less decentralized. like it or not at one point block size will be too high to allow for a very decentralized network, it better the fee market is exposed to this kind of pressure now rather than later. home full nodes are already pushing limits, its not hard to argue that a slow increase in blocksize is necessary, but how slow? let demand determine that...

if we proceed slowly we will see full node turn off slowly at which point we can say " stop the block size increase now or all the full nodes will drop out", at which point bitcoin capacity is said to have maxed out. fees run up. lighting network becomes increasingly important etc.

idk what the optimal limit for max TPS Vs Max decentralization is. lets take it slowly and play it by ear.

theres one thing we can all agree on.
we need improvements to reduce the amount of redundant traffic