Quote from: BTCtrader71 on August 04, 2014, 12:43:25 AM

Quote from: ArticMine on August 04, 2014, 12:16:27 AM

Quote from: statoshi on August 03, 2014, 10:06:29 PM

...

http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/02/bitcoin-block-size-thoughts.html

Jeff makes an argument that the block size should be a limited resource (akin to the 21 million limit) and that this will incentivize people to build layers on top of bitcoin. Perhaps experience will teach what was not obvious in the early days, which is that running into the transaction limit causes damage to bitcoin's utility that outweighs any benefit of encouraging "layers on top of bitcoin." His argument may or may not be correct, but it doesn't sound to me (a non programmer) to be some idiotic idea that is completely without merit. So here's my question: if the arguments put forth by Jeff in the above post do not stand the test of time, will the proponents of this idea will be too stupid to see it? Because if they CAN see it (and why wouldn't they?), then the problem will most likely be solved.

Sidenote: He also does not like feedback based methods, saying they can be easily gamed. It seems to me it would be easy to design a feedback based method that is prohibitively expensive to game. Just my initial reaction.

Short sighted decisions of this nature happen all the time. The 640KB limit decision by Microsoft led to an an entire generation of computer users to have to deal with the consequences for close to 20 years (until the 3.x and 9.x versions of Microsoft Windows were retired in the mid 2000's). I must say that I got a few grey hairs dealing with "extended" and "expanded" memory in MS-DOS as a result.

Quote from: BTCtrader71 on August 04, 2014, 01:33:55 AM

Quote from: ArticMine on August 04, 2014, 01:17:00 AM

Quote from: BTCtrader71 on August 04, 2014, 12:47:39 AM

...
ArticMine - what do you think about the spin off method described in Peter R's post?

It is an interesting proposal that can work if there is a very clear vote and hence valuation one way or the other. Where it can get real messy and problematic is if there is close to an even split or even significant vote for the minority chain. Then the uncertainty created can cause a significant overall loss of trust. The reality is that a hard fork only works with strong consensus and my thought is that Peter R's proposal will expose that reality. Having said this it may in the end have to come down to a spin off method solution as a last resort.

It sounds like one of those drastic measures that would probably never actually have to be implemented. Having said that, one of the biggest if not the number one chief threat to bitcoin as a long term store of value is that it could get replaced by an alt. If that ever looked like it might actually happen, I would imagine it would not be difficult to reach a consensus that the above plan would be preferable to watching the value of bitcoin plummet. So it is comforting, at least, to know something like that MIGHT be implement-able.

So, my thought process tells me that perhaps the chief threat to bitcoin is not replacement by an alt, but rather, fragmentation of community consensus. (Which could be the resestult of threat from an alt, or could come from who knows what.) Methods of managing community consensus is a problem that seems very interesting, although I have not seen it much discussed.

One of the most effective ways to get a community to pull together is a serious threat. This is just human nature and it is why there was strong consensus for the 2013 fork. So a fast rising alt may well generate the necessary consensus.

Edit: Managing and more importantly building community consensus is a very interesting topic on its own right. I must say this is not my best area of expertise as I am more the "geek" left brain type of person rather than the "people oriented" right brain type of person. There are others who are very good at this type of work and I respect them for their skills.