Quote from: Carlton Banks on September 21, 2015, 11:31:42 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on September 21, 2015, 10:54:25 AM

I agree that no one knows. That's why a fixed limit can't be taken seriously either. So the question becomes, how do we allow for increases in the safest possible way? You've said yourself in the BIP106 thread that:

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 17, 2015, 05:41:20 PM

Dynamic resizing is the obvious compromise between the camps. Everyone can get what they claim to want from it, without having to compromise either.

If the market chooses bigger blocks, then the market can test whether or not that works out in practice. If yes, then Gavin's design solution actually was the best idea after all. If not, then the market retreating will cause the blocksize to retreat also (which wouldn't be possible under BIP100).

The market could even try out bigger blocks, decide it doesn't work, try the alternative, dislike that more than bigger blocks, and then revert to some compromoise blocksize. Y'know, it's almost as if the free market works better than central planning...

And I very much agree with that. So why is it suddenly the heart of my misunderstanding and not yours? This amendment to BIP106 is far more moderate than the original and yet you're still taking issue with it when you claimed to like the original? Please start making sense soon.

I liked the original BIP106 for it's direction, I never stated I preferred it absolutely (and was careful to express myself that way, you should know that if you've been researching my post history thoroughly).

You're just relaying things I did not say, yet again, in order to "win". I'm not arguing with you, or anyone else for that matter. That's why I'm not making personal attacks or misrepresenting people's views as a strategy (which appears to be all you are capable of). It works to soothe the ego, but anyone observing will recognise what I am saying.

I am arguing about the actual issues, but if you attempt use subversive tactics, I will call you out. And it will do your reputation no good to continue trying to use these underhanded arguments. May I suggest that you stop doing it.

Fair enough. So back to the issue, is this amendment an improvement over the original or not? That's all I'm really looking for out of all this. Is it at least a step in the right direction?