Thank you franky1:  I understand but a 10% jump is at least something and then if all goes well the stage would be set to jump to something more, e.g. 1.2MB.  Breaking the standoff seems more important to me at this time; the world is watching us.

Thank you Lauda:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_growth ... ouchie; so if a 1MB block with y transactions in it takes x seconds to validate then 32 similar 1MB blocks will take about 32x seconds but a 32MB block can be expected to take about (32y)²x seconds.  Or is the quadratic growth on something other than transaction count?

One thing that seems apparent to me is the lack of willingness to compromise.  Appeasement is a powerful marketing tool.  Could we reasonably raise the block size limit to 1.1MB without wrecking Bitcoin?  Wouldn't the good will generated be worth it?  Along the way we might learn something important.  I fully realize the 2MB being bandied about is already a giant compromise down from the 32MB or 8MB sizes being proposed before.  Is there something special about doubling?  It can be set to 1.1MB easily, right?

I would be willing to run a full node on a testnet to see if my system could handle larger blocks, i.e. verify a large block in less than the average time between blocks.

I have a question:  The total amount work to verify N 1MB blocks is about the same as single N-MB block, right?  For example, 32 1MB blocks take about the same amount of work to verify as a single 32MB block, right?  Just please ignore the live delivery of blocks for the moment.  Or is there some advantage to large blocks where less headers have to be processed.  Imagine a full node was off the air for a day or two and is just trying to catch up as fast as possible.  What block size facilitates that best?

To me it seems fees tend to be inversely proportional to block size, i.e. with smaller blocks fees rise as folks compete to get into blocks, with larger blocks fees get smaller with less competition to get into blocks.  What does it cost a bad actor (if there is truly such a thing in this realm) to clog up the works?  I suppose we are looking for the right size of block to cause them to expend their resources most quickly.  Make the block size very small and the fee competition would rise high enough to deplete the bad actor very fast; everyone suffers higher fees until they are run out of town (so to speak).  Hmm, but if the block size is very small then even when there aren't any bad actors on the scene, regular legit users would be forced to compete.  At the other end of the spectrum; make the block size very large and with such low competition fees would diminish.  The real question here is what happens to the fees/MB across the spectrum of block sizes.

Is there *anyone* preferring a smaller than 1MB block size right now?  I haven't heard of any but you never know.  I do think some miners do artificially constrain the block size they produce to like 900KB or so (I'm not sure of their motivation).  Even if the block size were increased then such miners could still constrain the ones they produce, right?

A transaction cannot span multiple blocks, right?  I suppose the block size creates a functional limit on transaction sizes.  Or is the size of a transaction constrained some other way?

The typical user transaction is often under 300 bytes.  Much larger transaction appear in situations like payments to pool members, etc.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ is one place to check for fees.

Ok, no fiat, if it is too hard but it would really help.

Any wallet that leaves this unrevealed is hurting the Bitcoin brand.

Specifically, the right end should indicate if the transaction is in the next block - which is not guaranteed at any fee amount - then although on average it should take 5 minutes (½ of the target average of 10 minutes), it might take as much as two hours or even more to confirm.  If the transaction isn't in the next block or other things happen, e.g. orphan, etc., then it could take 4 hours or even more.

Couldn't agree more; in fact, I'd go further; the default should start way to the right and both ends should indicate both expected duration worst case and total fee amount in both BTC and fiat (at current exchange rate).  It is always better to set expectations brutally realistically and then outperform rather than the other way around.

Please help me understand this data.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  The cost of a spam attack depends on the fees associated with the transactions.  With a bigger block size perhaps the spammer could get away with smaller fees.  If the fees are smaller enough then it could more than offset the larger block size.  If only things were simple.

That really does not seem right; both sides could do that.  Soon we will need PoW or something to vote.

Hmm, there's no connection between the transaction commit time and block size?

A hard fork would be a show of good faith; especially if it isn't needed at the moment.  The willingness to compromise is key to being viewed as reasonable and inclusive.  Resisting compromise rankles against common sense; it undermines the trust and faith folks will put in you.

Do you truly believe in the SegWit-only approach so much that you're willing to give up the advantages of embracing a compromise?

At a minimum, help me understand when a block size increase would be entertained.  What reports do we watch?

This is really interesting.  I started running Classic recently and I too feel like I might have been the target of a DoS attack the last couple of days; my router/firewall has been reporting lots of teardrop attacks (way more than ever before) and as such has been less responsive than before.  How does one determine they are being attacked for sure?

High ground?  As in the dryer place?  The tactical advantage?  Or the morally superior position?    Can't a guy make a joke around here? 

I sincerely understand; you mean you don't use unseemly tactics, e.g. manipulation.  You argue points on their merit that the rational mind will see for itself from first principles.  Me too.

Lauda, the ball is in your court.  Do you see the opportunity for compromise here?  1.1MB (or 2MB) *and* SegWit?  Or will you stand firmly on the SegWit only approach?

Got it; thanks!  I shall unwatch the topic so it doesn't irritate me.

Do we in fact know they are mining empty blocks on purpose?  Is it possible they aren't seeing the same set of transactions we are?

Is there a log somewhere of transactions making into the Antpool mempool which they subsequently ignore?

Oops, my bad; I was joking; I should have added a smiley.  For the record, I never felt manipulated.

I am pretty sure most folks involved are indeed earnestly believing in their espoused positions; it is possible there are disruptors in here, deliberately flaming discontent.

I believe the following two positions are both true at the same time;

1) the block size should be increased for the expansion of Bitcoin
       this does come at a cost; bigger bandwidth, etc.
2) reasonable fees are good for the health of Bitcoin
       naturally the tricky part is figuring out what reasonable is

Folks that believe only one of these are the real source of trouble.  Lauda did show eventual support for 1).  It is unlikely he is a disruptor; just passionate.  VeritasSapere too showed willingness to compromise even though 2MB is already a big one; unlike a disruptor.  The proof is in the pudding.  As a show of good faith, the Core guys ought to boost the block size if nothing else to 1.1MB; even though they don't think it is required or it even hurts a little.  Sticking to the wait for SegWit (no matter how great it is) exclusively is not the smart move politically.

I highly suggest depolarizing.  Recruiting folks into one camp or the other is polarizing; stop it.  Compromise (even a little beyond reason) goes a very long way to improving the external image/brand.

Fine; I will deinstall Core and install, um, which one?  BU?  That will teach those darn Core guys; ignoring/banning me wasn't very nice.  If they aren't nice to enough people then they will lose control.

Hey, VeritaSapere; please stop manipulating me.

Perhaps a larger block size doesn't solve "this" but it certainly wouldn't hurt, right?

My son and I run an informal side chain in our brains; not terribly precise but it gets the job done.  We keep track of how much we owe each other (I paid for the ski lift ticket; he bought lunch, etc.) and when it gets big enough we settle in Bitcoin (or sometimes in US dollars; whichever is handy).  I think LN is like this but fancier and clearly way more precise/reliable.  If my son tries to screw me he's out of the will.