Bitcoin is itself a new technology we have at our disposal, and it's main function is as a decentralized method for arriving at consensus. Namely, consensus on valid blocks in the block chain. We can use this new technology to arrive at consensus on literally anything, and so it only makes sense that we use it to arrive at consensus on the BlockSize debate.
What we need is to define a CLEAR PROCESS by which this is done, as it will need to be done again and again in the future. Perhaps the first part of this CLEAR PROCESS that needs to be defined is what we define as Consensus? Is it 75%? Is it 90%? Is it 95%? 99%?
We can model this process after the following:
Step One: Stonewalling size increase changes is just as much as a Ben Bernanke/FOMC move as increasing the hard limit by hard fork. — Jeff Garzik, Developer
The issue to be decided is whether or not, and how to increase the block size. Relevant information might include the fact that there is no deep philosophical or technical reason for the current limit. Satoshi implemented the current limit as a temporary anti-spam measure under the assumption that the limit would need to be raised eventually.
With the current block size limit the Bitcoin network can only sustain less than around 260,000 transactions per day. If we look at the trend in increase of transaction volume we can project that we will run out of capacity as early as Fall 2016.
The solutions to this problem include increasing the block size now before this capacity limit is reached, waiting until we reach the limit to increase the block size, or never increasing the block size and relying on "payment channel" solutions such as Lightening Network and BlockStream.
Gavin Andreson's BIP101 essentially acted as our Step One, introducing the problem to be solved to the community at large and presenting a single possible solution that serves as the catalyst to jump start the debate, ultimately leading to a consensus conclusion. (probably not XT)
Step Two:Proposed Solutions to this problem include:
BIP 100
Periodically change the limit based on observed block size, but never go larger than 32MB.
BIP 101
Increase to 8 MB on January 11, 2016, and double the limit every two years.
BIP 102
Increase to 2 MB on November 11, 2015.
BIP 103
Increase by 17.7% annually until 2063.
And also of course no increase and relying solely on "payment channel" solutions.
"If [the niche of digital gold] is what Bitcoin users want, then they should keep the limit, and perhaps even decrease it. But if Bitcoin users want to be a payment system, then up it must go." - Vitalik Buterin
Step Three:Emerging proposals seem to be a compromise between the Pr0-XT camp and the Anti-XT camp. Such a compromise likely consists of simply increasing the block size via Bitcoin Core, avoiding all of the "extra features" that come with XT but satisfying the palpable call for increased block size.
Step Four:We are currently in-between the Step Two and STep Three Stages, perhaps coming close to Step Four soon, in which the emerging proposals are being refined and amended.
Step Five:In step five we should test for agreement. For example, BIP101 on Core which is to Increase the Blocksize to 8 MB and double it every two years. To find out if we have agreement we will put the proposal to the community.
If someone has a BLOCK against the proposal they are stating that they have a fundamental disagreement with this proposal which needs to be resolved. BLOCK's should be taken very seriously and also should be made with caution. A legitimate BLOCK against the proposal should stop it from being implemented. All BLOCK's should be listed and hashed out among the community so that amendments can be made to the proposal that address the issues raised in the BLOCKs.
A STAND ASIDE is a person who does not support the proposal entirely but who does not want to hinder a consensus decision and so does not stand in the way of it's supporters. STAND ASIDEs realize the harm in splitting the community is greater than the harm of the implementation of the proposal they disagree with.
RESERVATIONS are when a person supports the proposal but has some RESERVATIONS he is concerned with, but acknowledges these are minimal enough to let the proposition pass.
An AGREEMENT is when a person supports the proposal and is willing to implement it.
CONSENSUS is reached when we have virtually zero blocks, not too many stand asides and reservations, and active agreement at or around the agreed upon consensus level, such as 90%.
We can do step five on the block chain by voting for the proposal with hash power as adamstgBit has proposed here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1160035.0Step Six:Once we have the proposal, all that is left is to implement it.
The beauty of this method is that theoretically we do not have winners vs losers, or teams doing battle, or a war on our hands. We are working together to reach the best solution that we all agree on. We do not have 75% losers and 25% losers who threaten to do the worst thing possible and split bitcoin into two competing chains, instead we have a near 100% consensus that is a compromise between competing solutions and is agreed upon by all to be the best possible solution.
This is how we solve the current debate, and also all future debates that are sure to come.
