how can you say : There no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
and then follow with: The network only has problems
Because:
- 8 MB blocks might not be enough during future peak times
- 8 MB blocks are not enough to handle a stress test either
Essentially, almost nothing will be resolved. Learn the definition of the word urgent. Having a problem constantly would result in this being a urgent change, which it is not.
I think it's easy to show that this claim is false.
-snip-
By using a estimate of the future growth pattern? This is not evidence and will most likely be wrong.
In my opinion, a credible plan to increase the block size limit was urgent several months ago.
Yes, a
sustainable one was. A doubling every two years is not sustainable.
Update:
Around the last halving (Spring 12 - Spring13) the number of transactions increased tenfold.
You're expecting this to happen again. We shall see.
It surely would be way harder to fill 8 megabyte blocks.
Though i agree with you that the limit is not very bitcoinish. It should be removed completely and spam attacks should be handled with an intelligent fee system. Though i don't see someone spamming 8MB locks now that they are not even at 1MB. It would be way too expensive and would make no sense in any way.