But, as it stands now, even 8MB blocks might be risky at the moment
Just noticed the disconnect between your message and your username.
I appreciate your attention to details for I value that just as well.
My username suggests the next bandwidth target for the idea of a static limit on block size, but doesn't hint at the time when the adjustment needs to be made. I argued against many other more sophisticated scalability proposals with mathematical rigor, but it was when I found myself defending the future limit against the current one, that I realized the obvious contradiction in my line of thinking.
Finding the appropriate moment in time for the transition would become the most challenging and interesting part of Bitcoin's evolutionary path.
8mb block outta thin future extrapolations is as dumb as any other blocksize BIP proposal.
Besides, scaling is not a matter of blocksize so how about people let it go?
1MB Blocksize purposely prevent spam, and it is working just fine.
Its time the delusional reddit wanabees face the reality as such fork wont happen any time soon.
Economic majority wins.
Hearn, Gavin and their little noobs army out.
Well, suppose that bitcoin is, in fact, growing and being adopted as we speak. While I'm obviously not too bothered by the idea of a fee market, I still think a fee market is less desirable than no fee market. So, if we have already maximized efficiency/minimized spam (we have not), I think addressing throughput directly is the next logical answer.
So, to the extent that we can increase the block size limit without foregoing or jeopardizing key tenets of bitcoin (consensus, decentralization, network security), I think we should do that. But that necessarily entails a very conservative approach where we can achieve testable conditions (i.e. roughly in line with actual demand).
8MB, exponential scaling = straight up reckless.