So Bitcoin.com just published an interview with Konrad S. Graf (
https://news.bitcoin.com/konrad-graf-bitcoin-block-size-economy/). He's very well respected in this community for his economic/historical work on the origin of Bitcoin's value, so I think his views on the block size are important. Apparently, he views the 1 MB limit as something similar to a government-mandated output ceiling, and that it disrupts a block size 'free market,' so to speak. What do you guys think?
The potential for abuse without a block-size limit is too high, if the block size limit is removed, then it will be the end of all chains that adopted the removal.
...
Did you read the article? He doesn't advocate for removal of the block size limit. He does seem in favor of keeping the limit well above the average block size, whether by a series of hard forks or a dynamically adjusting block size limit, but he doesn't really take a strong position one way or another. He does briefly discuss what he thinks would happen in the absence of a block size limit on the last page, but I certainly wouldn't say he's pushing for it.
If you didn't read, I would recommend checking it out - I think he presents some nuanced and logical arguments about what is happening and could happen under different scenarios.
No, I barely skimmed the title.
My comments are speaking about block size removal in general, as that is the pertinent issue on peoples minds with this whole Craig Wright fiasco.
The issue at hand is that Gavin's BIP101 proposal had an absolutely absurd block size limit of 8MB which doubled every two years to 8GB near the end of its term, and I want people to realize that this is essentially the same as removing the block size limit all together.
I was not making any comments on his specific opinion if that is what you thought.
You should definitely give it a read when you get the chance.