Quote from: andrew24p on April 05, 2017, 06:47:05 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 01, 2017, 03:23:14 PM

Quote from: ImHash on April 01, 2017, 01:57:02 PM

So BU is the answer? where only a big mining farm owning almost half the hash power wants to increase the block size as long as there are transactions in the mempool, but would they just and only change the blocksize without changing anything else?

It doesn't necessarily have to be the miners in charge, but it shouldn't be developers either.

Quote

to remove long term moral hazard, core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands.

- Jeff Garzik

Quote

implement a permanent block size solution once and for all, that will keep the block size limit above market demand. There are several options, such as Stephen Pairs flexcap proposal.

- Olivier Janssens

If blocks are too large they will get stuck behind China's great firewall. Thats the beauty of all the god damn miners being located and centralized in one place. You are all worried about centralization in core, well all the Chinese miners know eachother, most of them are friends, and they all have some sort of government connections or they would not be able to get the electricity contracts they are getting.

You can't have it both ways... Either China is a threat because they are centralized... or they are weak because they are slow (blocks get orphaned/stuck).