Quote from: jubalix on September 25, 2017, 09:56:01 AM

Quote from: HeRetiK on September 25, 2017, 05:50:36 AM

Quote from: jubalix on September 25, 2017, 02:29:28 AM

I do not see that core's has any tenable objection to 2X.

[1] Tech has moved on, 2mb is not that big, HD space and bandwidth are much cheaper

Quote

2x is a "physical" blocksize increase to 4-6MB, not just 2MB. Regular SegWit already leads to 2-3MB blocks.

Thanks just to clarify, when I say 2x, I know segwit gives effective size, but I mean the commitment to make base blocks bigger so we can really make the "spammers" run ou of money and keep on chain fees lower, and give consumer choice.

Quote from: jubalix on September 25, 2017, 02:29:28 AM

[2] BCH has proved you can go bigger blocks and have significant value network, and BCH network has not collapsed.

Quote

BCH has barely any blocks that are larger than 50k because there are hardly any transactions being made, so it hasn't proven anything so far.

ok....I guess as far as it goes the network has no catastrophically died....I think there have be a few 8mb blocks or something mined, but your right not a real stress test

Quote from: jubalix on September 25, 2017, 02:29:28 AM

[3] It provides choice as to on chain or of chain transactions

Quote

Regular SegWit does as well.

your right....I should rephrase that that the price for on chain would be less. Also on point what then isentivices miners as block reward drops if they don't have enough transactions on chain?

Quote from: jubalix on September 25, 2017, 02:29:28 AM

[4] there is no such thing as spam in the network, but I will use the word "spam" as shorthand for transactions person A does not like.

Quote

Spam is defined as transactions that are made explicitely for the purpose of clogging up the network, akin to DDoS requests. While to my knowledge there's little "hard" proof that spam transaction exists, they are not simply "transactions person A does not like."

I don't quite buy that definition. I see a transaction as away to signal to the market. Just because someone wants to send a different signal does not make it less valid, then your transaction. But as I said I will use the moniker "spam" for ease of conversation

Quote from: jubalix on September 25, 2017, 02:29:28 AM

[5] If you say go 8 times the blocksize and 1/2 the price for fees it will be 4 times more costly to "spam" a block while providing much lower fees. Given there are limited bitcoins, the spammer will run out of BTC to spam.

Quote

Agreed.

Yeah I see this as a way of quickly running spammers out of funds, by allowing more people to signal and so get information to the market.

Quote from: jubalix on September 25, 2017, 02:29:28 AM

I welcome any discussion as why I am in error, but as it stand to not 2x then a few years later 4x and so on, seem in bad faith by core. It forces the question cui bono?

Quote

Problem being, that this approach would require a hardfork any time a block size increase takes place. While it went fairly OK with BCH, a hardfork is always a risky endeavour.

Your right hardforks have risks, I "feel" though that not hard forking can have risks of stultification. I wonder if some sort of dynamic scaling would allay your hard for concerns.

Thanks for your considered opinions by the way. I like it when you address point by point.

And it is not about not forking, but about forking without replay protection. That is a deliberate attack. So much for cherry coating 2x.