Quote from: notig on February 19, 2013, 06:30:24 AM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 19, 2013, 06:03:37 AM

Really? Why do you say that?

Quote

I think we should put users first. What do users want? They want low transaction fees and fast confirmations. Lets design for that case, because THE USERS are who ultimately give Bitcoin value. - Gavin Andersen

Did I completely misunderstand him when he said this is another thread? Doesn't lower transaction fees and fast confirmations mean a larger block size?

Quote

Really? Improve it how?

Quote

You seem to be saying that we should subsidize inefficient miners by limiting the block size, therefore driving up fees and making users pay for their inefficiency. - Gavin Andersen

Once again........ am I completely misunderstanding what he is saying here? He is saying limiting the block size (as it is currently ) drives up fees and makes users pay for their inefficiency. Does this not mean that Gavin is for raising the block size limit which means a fork?

From that same conversation, I see the following qote from that same person:

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on February 18, 2013, 05:14:32 PM

- snip -
So, as I've said before: we're running up against the artificial 250K block size limit now, I would like to see what happens. There are lots of moving pieces here, so I don't think ANYBODY really knows what will happen
- snip -

That would seem to indicate to me that there hasn't been any decision to increase block size any time soon. As a matter of fact, the blocksize has been artificially decreased for many miners to gain knowledge on which to base future decisions.

The quotes you posted appear to be used as an argument against a particular reasoning that blocksize has to remain small forever for the sake of inefficient miners. This is in no way an argument that the blocksize needs to increase soon, only that the possibility of raising it in the future shouldn't be eliminated.