Quote from: sgbett on October 08, 2015, 06:24:21 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 08, 2015, 05:40:12 PM

Quote from: sgbett on October 08, 2015, 05:28:52 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 08, 2015, 05:16:26 PM

Quote from: sgbett on October 08, 2015, 04:41:25 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 07, 2015, 08:53:25 PM

Quote from: sgbett on October 07, 2015, 08:30:09 PM

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....

Quote from: sgbett on October 07, 2015, 05:31:22 PM

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?

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.

Should miners also decide the block time interval? Or the total supply?

After all who knows the best option right? Might as well leave "headroom".

I'm curious, how do you propose the block size could be kept down "if it turns out to be a problem". Is it up to the miners or not? What are "soft limits"? How do you enforce them?

I know you probably have read all of these arguments but are not concerned with nodes having to keep up with the miners incentives to optimize for profits?

Do you not agree with this? Do you think big game hunters should decide on the acceptable limits of endangered species they can hunt?

Quote from: brg444 on October 06, 2015, 07:25:55 PM

Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#What_are_the_block_size_soft_limits.3F

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

You're right! But I would posit that they don't need to agree, they all need to act in their own best economic interest and that the free market will decide the most efficient conditions. (one might argue that they would talk amongst themselves and come to some consensus as this would be in there best economic interest. they have before, though of course they may not again).

I accept this is somewhat of a leap of faith, but the opposite requires on being smarter than the average bear. Humans are not, we are married to the idea that we are smart, and blind to all our flaws as a result.

This is not a "leap of faith", this is downright naive.

I'm sorry but what you posit is straight up nonsense. The miners are not a group, there is no such thing as "their own best economic interest". It is a competitive environment and they seek profit first and foremost. Miners with the most resources will set a limit beyond what the smallest players are capable of handling to eventually drive them out of the market.

You are right that they have talked amongst themselves before, it was to organize this SPV mining scheme that succeeded in causing a fork of the network. Are you really suggesting we trust these guys to do what's best "for the greater good"!?