Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it!
You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....
Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.
The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.
A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption.
You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust.
You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....
Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.
The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.
A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption.
You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust.
I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them.
From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be?
You are dumbfounded about something? That needs to go on record. Usually you have all the answers
Yes you can't predict future events and so you should not take a course of action that is based on assuming something will or will not happen. Instead you should take a course of action that allows for (and positively embraces) the widest possible range of scenarios.
You have read Taleb haven't you, you know how antifragility works? You can see that imposing an artificial limit creates a fragile system? You are locked in to a particular view/model. If that model is not right then there is the potential for great loss.
Lets say we hard fork to an implementation with no block size limit. You are now in a position where you can go either way. The headroom is available if you need it, soft limits can be used to keep block size down if it turns out to be a problem.
And *everything* in between is available and possible. You aren't relying on a few good man guessing rightly, you are letting the market figure it out.
If you don't know what the best option is, and you don't however much you think you might, then leave your options open.
I don't want 1MB blocks, 8MB blocks or 8GB blocks , I want miners to have the option to produce blocks as big as is necessary at any given instance.
The 1MB block size limit was about a DDoS vulnerability. Not about the bitcoin economy. A whole bunch of people are trying to make it about the economy, and yet you keep accusing me of rewriting history.