Re: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization
What changed in your understanding of marketing during the last three years?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15145#msg15145
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15145#msg15145
I'm glad you asked
Being the person who actually posted a faux-patch increasing the block size limit, it is important to understand why I disagree with that now... it was erroneously assuming that the block size was the whole-picture, and not a simple, lower layer solution in a bigger picture.
The block size is an intentionally limited economic resource, just like the 21,000,000-bitcoin limit.
Changing that vastly degrades the economics surrounding bitcoin, creating many negative incentives.
I, like many others who have commented in support of changing the max block limit, have a primary objective: to prevent bitcoin hitting a wall.
This is where the 1Mb limit is reached and transaction delays occur to such an extent that the chaos and negative press stops enough people from using bitcoin that it can limp along with saturated 1Mb blocks. Just when everyone thinks the problems are resolved they pile in again and the delays occur again. In this scenario, which may be within a year, the alternative layers/systems may not be mature enough to handle bitcoin volume growth without a lot of bad press and very upset people, badly tarnishing bitcoin's reputation.
Surely , making the limit algorithmically flexible so that it increases by a minimum to support growth without bottlenecks, until alternative layers/systems take up the slack, on their own merits, will NOT "vastly degrade the economics surrounding bitcoin, creating many negative incentives.".