Despite this I still think we need bigger blocks, and in taking this road I think that the pain Gregory described above would increase. I think this is growing pain though and although its undesirable I don't think its symptomatic of terminal illness.
I absolutely have faith that "development" has some big answers to this, and that protocol/software improvement will be the thing that addresses the challenges we currently face with infrastructure requirements.
Have faith in development or whatever, just let the developers work on proper scaling solutions.
Essentially I think we can have it all, and that those that frame the debate as being mutually exclusive are too married to their position to see the big picture.
Big picture: "I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
And it is exclusive from being highjacked with broken democracy social brigading.
Bandwidth requirements are a big concern. Full blocks are a big concern. Speculation as to the consequences of these things (an in particular using those hypothetical concerns) to justify why we must do X is not helpful.
No, full blocks are meant to be in bitcoin.
We should do a bit of X,Y and Z. I think in doing these things iteratively, further opportunities will present themselves. Thats the reality of software development (at least in my experience). Sometimes you have to do a bit of suck it and see. It might not be optimal at that given point in time, but it can help drive development in a more optimal direction.
The reality of "open" software development is that anybody is free to contribute, but it does not imply it will be implemented by the network's participants.
Still, bitcoin unity relies on a consensus, not some various branding for all the braindeads spectrum a la cocacola zero, light and cherry.
My biggest concern is that the only option I have to support bigger blocks is XT. I'd hate for everyone to jump to that because it was the only viable alternative.
Supporting bigger blocks just for bigger blocks is childish and stands no ground in the technical debate.
I am supporting scaling solutions that do not hamper the decentralization and hence the security of bitcoin's network.
I am supporting bitcoin as an immuable force from which a healthy monetary system will emerge.
To be clear, its the fact there is only one option that is the problem. In and of itself I don't think XT is necessarily a bad option, and I certainly don't subscribe to the belief that it would automatically result in all the bad things happening. Over time it could potentially facilitate those things, but I also believe that if that were the case then this can be addressed.
Unbelievable, talking stuff like "belief" "could" "believe" "things" all the way down to such pseudo conclusion.
Yes, I have "faith". Without it what is the point in anything.
There is no point bending bitcoin's rules just to fit couple USG payment processors and broken fiat intermediaries.
To hell with the corporate leeches.