Quote from: da2ce7 on December 02, 2015, 04:25:47 AM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on December 02, 2015, 04:05:32 AM

Quote from: da2ce7 on December 02, 2015, 03:49:51 AM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on December 02, 2015, 03:21:05 AM

4MB blocks going towards 2020 seems like it's leaning towards protecting decentralization vs growth at all costs. And it's a number I bet most BIP101 fans would find absurdly small. As polarized as this debate has been, I think the winning proposal should be the one that equalizes displeasure between the XT-Unlimited and 1MB4EVA camps. Doubling max block size in tandem with halvings mimics and compliments the simplicity and predictability of the reward schedule.

This dose nothing to alleviate the genuine concerns of Luke Jr, and other Bitcoin Engineers that have good evidence and reason to believe that the 750kb blocks that we have now are already hitting the block size scaling limits that the network can safely manage.

People who propose such large blocks, such as 2mb or 4mb, never seem to address the concerns that the Bitcoin Network is *already* struggling under present loads.

I probably don't need to remind you that max != actual, just like today. If luke doesn't have better internet in 2019 he'll have some splainin' to do.

Except we all know that it is the same charlatans that have been pressuring the miners to include more transactions and create max-block-size blocks on average. - Who are also pressuring to increase the same max-block-size limit.

So the argument about max-size vs actual-size is a bit of a moot-point, really.

Bigger blocks (with at least some reasonable upper bound) make spam attacks more expensive, as tx's drop out of the mempool and fees can be recycled continuously. The point is not moot, because as we see now, even when the incentive to bloat blocks does exist, we aren't seeing it. This change would make it a more expensive proposition for the potential spammer.