People keep talking about the storage space, as if that were the main issue with larger blocks. I haven't been on top of the discussions lately, but I thought the main issue is the attack vectors that would be opened, such as withholding attacks becoming viable due to increased latency of block propagation.
@gmaxwell, Could you perhaps remind us, in summary, what the main problem(s) is (are) with increasing the max block size?
That does not mean I think the crowd will choose big blocks, it means that I think if bigger blocks are needed then I think that something will happen to ensure that bigger blocks happen.
This was one of the big fallacies involved in the "crash landing" spin by Gavin and Hearn; this notion that Bitcoin would willfully commit suicide. Cranking the scale ahead of addressing scaliablity is/was controversial (not just among the most technical, though it's nearly universal there); but if it were strongly _necessary_, and better than the harm of not; then it would no longer be. That we're not there now, shows it isn't. QED. And there is a tone of activity gone on to improve scalablity at all levels of the system, from micro optimizations, to protocol design.
In your view, do you think it's possible/probable that Gavin and Hearn have been compromised in some way, working for a different agenda than that which they started out with?
I'd actually like to know the answer to that as well. What is the real problem and how likely is it?
Andresen hasn't changed at all. It's been obvious from the beginning that his primary motivation is power, money, control and then some more power. Everything he's done from the media spotlight to centralizing control of Bitcoin in the hands of the foundation has been aimed at that. Refuse to agree with him and prepare to be attacked. I guess no one can remember his behavior during the BIP16/17 arguments. He's a sad little man that controlled Bitcoin's direction for too long.