Quote from: Klestin on October 01, 2015, 03:42:55 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on October 01, 2015, 03:25:38 PM

The only thing that forces us to come together and consider changing the rules is "static" limit on block size.

History proves you wrong on this one. We've already changed the block size cap - it used to be unlimited (effectively 20MB due to other restrictions) and it was moved to 1MB as a temporary measure to avoid potential spamming.

In the early stages the system had very little mass and inertia, thus Satoshi could easily tweak a few parameters here and there without everyone being concerned. The 1MB limit was placed 5 years ago, became part of the consensus rules and hasn't been touched since then. Only now we begin talking about it in a serious way.

Quote from: Klestin on October 01, 2015, 03:42:55 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on October 01, 2015, 03:25:38 PM

But, as it stands now, even 8MB blocks might be risky at the moment as we may lose significant amounts of full nodes and then decisions of changing the "consensus" rules will be made without the actual users of the network.

Switching to 8MB cap does exactly nothing immediately to the block size. We currently have a 1MB cap, yet we do not have 1MB blocks. 8MB gives some room to grow, that's all.

It does. If the current limit is removed before it becomes effective, then the new one doesn't make any sense, we can just as well throw it away. But that would definitely affect network's long-term characteristics (like costs to entry into validation) and make its evolutionary dynamics so much less predictable. If we are to agree on the new limit we must let the current one hold long enough and prove itself in action.

Quote from: Klestin on October 01, 2015, 03:42:55 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on October 01, 2015, 03:25:38 PM

Economic pressure is a good thing, we should be welcoming it as there is a need to test this aspect of the system and see what other effects come into play and how the whole ecosystem reacts to this.

Then you should welcome a block size increase. We already have an open economic system. If miners want higher fees, they are free to increase their minimums. If enough of them do, then users will need to pay the fees or live with a slower transaction time. If/when we hit the cap, we will be entering uncharted territory, and imposing an artificial block on the natural increase of Bitcoin adoption.

Yes, we haven't gone through this yet. The part of the cycle when the system is operating under the economic pressure is absolutely necessary, as Bitcoin needs to demonstrate that the validation costs can temporarily go down in order for the idea of freely accessible blockchain to be sustainable over the decades to come. If Bitcoin cannot show this, then any even remotely successful crypto-currency would be destined to eventually centralize and lose its original core values.

There must be a force in the economic system which can weight in on the limit and defend it at all costs as it's supposed to represent their interests. We are talking about the Bitcoin users here and we stand united.