Quote from: NewLiberty on October 21, 2014, 05:33:09 AM

Correct. If you fix something and it never needs fixing again, and just keeps working from them on, you have fixed in a right way.

What about this from you?

Quote from: NewLiberty on October 19, 2014, 06:03:54 PM

I do agree that any feedback mechanism such as we are seeking with this line of discussion holds the potential for creating a perverse incentive.

How can you know if your solution is right and still admit this?

Quote from: NewLiberty on October 21, 2014, 05:33:09 AM

Automatic adjustment based on the environment of the future at least has a possibility of being right.

So does increases inline with 30 years of historical data.

Quote from: NewLiberty on October 21, 2014, 05:33:09 AM

We can play "what if" about all sorts of things, but at least the ones you mention here are not going to take additional hard forks to accommodate if we use any either of the methods described in this thread.

We need to clear something up. As I've said I don't expect future hard forks to be possible due the protocol ossifying. You keep talking about changes which might occur later and how you're against that. I'm saying I don't believe there can be any changes after a certain point, one which we may be nearing, because it's harder to gain consensus the more people that need be consulted.

Whatever change we make that will probably be it. How well it works in the future depends on how technology plays out and the community's ability to adapt around the protocol's shortcomings if there are any.

Please tell me if you agree an ossifying of the protocol - the fact it will become increasingly hard, probably impossible to make changes as adoption grows - is what we'll likely see.

Quote from: NewLiberty on October 21, 2014, 05:33:09 AM

At best they are saying "not now".

If they're saying not now it may become impossible to change from 1MB. I don't believe their position is realistic, but who is more right? Everything is subjectively based on the priorities of the advocate.

My goal, as you said earlier isn't to be right, it's to arrive at some solution which can gain consensus while meeting Bitcoin's promises. If that's Gavin's proposal, fine. If that's your solution, fine. Let's just get something that meets that criteria so we're not stuck.

Why I think Gavin's proposal would play out better:

it has good chance at gaining consensus given Gavin's position
it provides predictability which shouldn't be under appreciated; most people/businesses are not nerds enjoying complex ideas, they want simple understandable guidelines to make decisions upon and can chart numbers with Gavin's model
similar to now the max size is a cap, not what is actually used; the cap stays commensurate with Moore's Law and Nielsen's Law
it accommodates the largest number of users (inline with exponential adoption) while still offering a protective cap
in the worst case if centralization occurs there is still the community to deal with (remember GHash.io) which has alternative coins

What I dislike about an input based solution:

possibly does not serve the greatest number of people
less certain about gaining consensus as people that need to be swayed may include business types like BitPay, Circle, Bitcoin Foundation, etc.
it doesn't provide clear predictability; whatever happens is dynamic based on the network which is influenced by various factors
possible perverse incentives created
a more complex solution means greater chance something doesn't work as expected

I see your version as fitting more like a glove. I'd agree it's probably more conservative and protective than Gavin's proposal, but at what expense? Nothing will be ideal because the technology and likely usage demand don't match, and won't for some time. Perhaps you can produce a bullet point list too and we can begin debating specifics.