BIP100, BIP 101 and XT nodes status

[poeEDgar]

This debate is stupid, you are all fighting over cost, pick one you want bitcoin to be a currency or a commodity. A digital dollar or a digital gold, because that is what this fight is truly coming down to, I want it to be a digital gold personally for investment reasons but it would benefit the world more if it was a digital dollar and I am alright with that.

That's an interesting take. I, for one, view bitcoin as a commodity -- some kind of digital gold. It doesn't seem to fit the definition of "medium of exchange" that would imply a currency. Regardless, this doesn't speak to the issue of transfer cost. Even if bitcoin is a commodity, we still need to deal with the idea that it is transferable, and economic incentives need to be in place to ensure the security of that system.

[VeritasSapere]

This debate is stupid, you are all fighting over cost, pick one you want bitcoin to be a currency or a commodity. A digital dollar or a digital gold, because that is what this fight is truly coming down to, I want it to be a digital gold personally for investment reasons but it would benefit the world more if it was a digital dollar and I am alright with that.

That's an interesting take. I, for one, view bitcoin as a commodity -- some kind of digital gold. It doesn't seem to fit the definition of "medium of exchange" that would imply a currency. Regardless, this doesn't speak to the issue of transfer cost. Even if bitcoin is a commodity, we still need to deal with the idea that it is transferable, and economic incentives need to be in place to ensure the security of that system.

Yes it does though, if it is going to be a commodity then we keep it the same 1mb constant. The price to transfer is based on demand and speed required via fee, it is not used in everyday goods buying.

It can be both a commodity, which is a good store of value, and it can also be used as a currency, while both mutually benefiting each other synergistically because of the shared properties and advantages that this brings. Bitcoin is many things, and we do not need to choose, it can do and be both of these things simultaneously, cryptocurrency is beautiful.

[poeEDgar]

This debate is stupid, you are all fighting over cost, pick one you want bitcoin to be a currency or a commodity. A digital dollar or a digital gold, because that is what this fight is truly coming down to, I want it to be a digital gold personally for investment reasons but it would benefit the world more if it was a digital dollar and I am alright with that.

That's an interesting take. I, for one, view bitcoin as a commodity -- some kind of digital gold. It doesn't seem to fit the definition of "medium of exchange" that would imply a currency. Regardless, this doesn't speak to the issue of transfer cost. Even if bitcoin is a commodity, we still need to deal with the idea that it is transferable, and economic incentives need to be in place to ensure the security of that system.

Yes it does though, if it is going to be a commodity then we keep it the same 1mb constant. The price to transfer is based on demand and speed required via fee, it is not used in everyday goods buying.

I don't see the logic for why this entails a 1mb constant.

[VeritasSapere]

You make some good points, in terms of how do we define low cost, however if we did not increase the block size at all and there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive, this most certainly can not be defined as low cost.

The logical problem here is that you are using a subjective definition to define "low cost." Whether the cost is "prohibitively expensive" is, of course, subjective. $.05 may be prohibitive for some. $100 may be prohibitive for another.

This is not a logical problem, since the path we choose for Bitcoin is based on the ideology we hold. Decentralisation and freedom might be the ideology we hold, but it is a subjective position, not one borne from science but philosophy and ethics. These questions are political in nature. Therefore what we consider to be "low cost" is indeed subjective. However most rational ideologies would consider $100 to expensive if our goal is to have more people use the Bitcoin blockchain directly. This premise however is entirely based on our ideology and it is therefore entirely subjective as it should be.

[VeritasSapere]

This debate is stupid, you are all fighting over cost, pick one you want bitcoin to be a currency or a commodity. A digital dollar or a digital gold, because that is what this fight is truly coming down to, I want it to be a digital gold personally for investment reasons but it would benefit the world more if it was a digital dollar and I am alright with that.

That's an interesting take. I, for one, view bitcoin as a commodity -- some kind of digital gold. It doesn't seem to fit the definition of "medium of exchange" that would imply a currency. Regardless, this doesn't speak to the issue of transfer cost. Even if bitcoin is a commodity, we still need to deal with the idea that it is transferable, and economic incentives need to be in place to ensure the security of that system.

Yes it does though, if it is going to be a commodity then we keep it the same 1mb constant. The price to transfer is based on demand and speed required via fee, it is not used in everyday goods buying.

I don't see the logic for why this entails a 1mb constant.

I do not see why having Bitcoin as a commodity entails having a 1mb constant either, the burden of proof is on you for this claim, please explain.

[poeEDgar]

You make some good points, in terms of how do we define low cost, however if we did not increase the block size at all and there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive, this most certainly can not be defined as low cost.

The logical problem here is that you are using a subjective definition to define "low cost." Whether the cost is "prohibitively expensive" is, of course, subjective. $.05 may be prohibitive for some. $100 may be prohibitive for another.

This is not a logical problem, since the path we choose for Bitcoin is based on the ideology we hold. Decentralisation and freedom might be the ideology we hold, but it is a subjective position, not one borne from science but philosophy and ethics. These questions are political in nature. Therefore what we consider to be "low cost" is indeed subjective. However most rational ideologies would consider $100 to expensive if our goal is to have more people use the Bitcoin blockchain directly. This premise however is entirely based on our ideology and it is therefore entirely subjective as it should be.

The logical problem is arguing that fees could ever be "prohibitively expensive" if we don't have a standard definition of "expensive." So yes, this boils down to an ideological issue.

I was responding to the idea that "[if] there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive." Logically, the former only entails the latter once we have formed a standard definition of "low cost" or "expensive." This is likely impossible.

In a heavily censored, totalitarian world, many people might be happy to pay $100 to make payments in any amount that cannot be externally controlled.

[VeritasSapere]

You make some good points, in terms of how do we define low cost, however if we did not increase the block size at all and there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive, this most certainly can not be defined as low cost.

The logical problem here is that you are using a subjective definition to define "low cost." Whether the cost is "prohibitively expensive" is, of course, subjective. $.05 may be prohibitive for some. $100 may be prohibitive for another.

This is not a logical problem, since the path we choose for Bitcoin is based on the ideology we hold. Decentralisation and freedom might be the ideology we hold, but it is a subjective position, not one borne from science but philosophy and ethics. These questions are political in nature. Therefore what we consider to be "low cost" is indeed subjective. However most rational ideologies would consider $100 to expensive if our goal is to have more people use the Bitcoin blockchain directly. This premise however is entirely based on our ideology and it is therefore entirely subjective as it should be.

The logical problem is arguing that fees could ever be "prohibitively expensive" if we don't have a standard definition of "expensive." So yes, this boils down to an ideological issue.

I was responding to the idea that "[if] there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive." Logically, the former only entails the latter once we have formed a standard definition of "low cost" or "expensive." This is likely impossible.

In a heavily censored, totalitarian world, many people might be happy to pay $100 to make payments in any amount that cannot be externally controlled.

In a world where there is a free market of cryptocurrencies people would just choose to use another cryptocurrency instead of paying such a fee. Bitcoin is not guaranteed its success, it must still compete with other cryptocurrencies.

I do not think that we even need to agree on what the fee should be, the market can decide that, miners have full discretion in what transactions to include in the blocks they mine after all. I just do not think that the limit for transactions should be arbitrarily set as low as it is today. This limit should be determined by the limits that exist within our technology at the time, one megabyte blocks are not the limit of our technology today and it certainly wont be in the far future either.

[dserrano5]

The original vision of Bitcoin was that it should be low cost.

Source?

The Bitcoin whitepaper:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

1.- Make any claim you like.
2.- Be asked for a source.
3.- Just cite "The Bitcoin whitepaper".
4.- Profit! (?)

Please be more specific. I fail to find a reference to "low cost" in my copy of bitcoin.pdf. And I don't think my copy has become outdated either .

[VeritasSapere]

The original vision of Bitcoin was that it should be low cost.

Source?

The Bitcoin whitepaper:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

1.- Make any claim you like.
2.- Be asked for a source.
3.- Just cite "The Bitcoin whitepaper".
4.- Profit! (?)

Please be more specific. I fail to find a reference to "low cost" in my copy of bitcoin.pdf. And I don't think my copy has become outdated either .

"The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions" This would imply "low cost", but you are correct in saying that he does not specifically reference "low cost" which as was pointed out earlier would be subjective anyway. Furthermore since he did think we should increase the block size it therefore also implies in part how he thought the fee market should play out as well, at least in terms of the block size at such an early stage of development and adoption.

[VeritasSapere]

This debate is stupid, you are all fighting over cost, pick one you want bitcoin to be a currency or a commodity. A digital dollar or a digital gold, because that is what this fight is truly coming down to, I want it to be a digital gold personally for investment reasons but it would benefit the world more if it was a digital dollar and I am alright with that.

That's an interesting take. I, for one, view bitcoin as a commodity -- some kind of digital gold. It doesn't seem to fit the definition of "medium of exchange" that would imply a currency. Regardless, this doesn't speak to the issue of transfer cost. Even if bitcoin is a commodity, we still need to deal with the idea that it is transferable, and economic incentives need to be in place to ensure the security of that system.

Yes it does though, if it is going to be a commodity then we keep it the same 1mb constant. The price to transfer is based on demand and speed required via fee, it is not used in everyday goods buying.

I don't see the logic for why this entails a 1mb constant.

I do not see why having Bitcoin as a commodity entails having a 1mb constant either, the burden of proof is on you for this claim, please explain.

There is no burden of proof I am not stating a fact, but if it is going to be a commodity (not that it can't be a dual but there will be resistance along the way) is that it isn't messed with often (forks or whatnot). No trader wants a digital gold that is fluctuating on forks or communities bickering on developers, they want it to be one thing and not change as change can cause FUD or a self destruction, isn't it obvious by the current xt vs core fight?

That is a good way to define a commodity in this case. It is good to remember that this political process and mechanism of consensus are a part of Bitcoin. These are the political components that allow Bitcoin to remain free and therefore ensure that it does not lose the properties that people favor. I agree that we should not change it fundamentally, this is the last hard fork I can imagine myself ever supporting at least, though I do not know what the future will bring. However in this case not increasing the block size can be seen as breaking the social contract, since the one megabyte block limit was put there just as a temporary measure. This is an internal schism that Bitcoin must go through in order to mature, this is important however. I do not like the damage it causes either, but just like some political conflicts in the past they are justified and necessary for continued survival and prosperity. As soon as this has been resolved and Bitcoin can scale more then it does now at least, without relying on third parties. Then Bitcoin will be ready for the world as a commodity and a currency. Trust without centralized authority and all of the applications that can be applied to.

[poeEDgar]

You make some good points, in terms of how do we define low cost, however if we did not increase the block size at all and there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive, this most certainly can not be defined as low cost.

The logical problem here is that you are using a subjective definition to define "low cost." Whether the cost is "prohibitively expensive" is, of course, subjective. $.05 may be prohibitive for some. $100 may be prohibitive for another.

This is not a logical problem, since the path we choose for Bitcoin is based on the ideology we hold. Decentralisation and freedom might be the ideology we hold, but it is a subjective position, not one borne from science but philosophy and ethics. These questions are political in nature. Therefore what we consider to be "low cost" is indeed subjective. However most rational ideologies would consider $100 to expensive if our goal is to have more people use the Bitcoin blockchain directly. This premise however is entirely based on our ideology and it is therefore entirely subjective as it should be.

The logical problem is arguing that fees could ever be "prohibitively expensive" if we don't have a standard definition of "expensive." So yes, this boils down to an ideological issue.

I was responding to the idea that "[if] there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive." Logically, the former only entails the latter once we have formed a standard definition of "low cost" or "expensive." This is likely impossible.

In a heavily censored, totalitarian world, many people might be happy to pay $100 to make payments in any amount that cannot be externally controlled.

In a world where there is a free market of cryptocurrencies people would just choose to use another cryptocurrency instead of paying such a fee. Bitcoin is not guaranteed its success, it must still compete with other cryptocurrencies.

Hey, if there's another cryptocurrency that occurs to me as decentralized "sound money", has robust network security and healthy velocity of money, I'm all for it. At this point, I don't see any real competition for bitcoin. And should some altcoin overtake bitcoin in adoption, I'm all for that, too. This type of argument just boils down to more irrational fear that we aren't acting quickly enough. But bitcoin is an economy, with many stakeholders who deserve consideration in the matter. Emphasis should be on core values like decentralization, consensus and network security -- not urgency to compete with other cryptocurrencies.

This limit should be determined by the limits that exist within our technology at the time

Don't you think coding an 8GB block size limit is jumping the gun a bit?

The quote in my signature is about the level of technicality you will receive when inquiring as to why.

[poeEDgar]

The original vision of Bitcoin was that it should be low cost.

Source?

The Bitcoin whitepaper:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

1.- Make any claim you like.
2.- Be asked for a source.
3.- Just cite "The Bitcoin whitepaper".
4.- Profit! (?)

Please be more specific. I fail to find a reference to "low cost" in my copy of bitcoin.pdf. And I don't think my copy has become outdated either .

+1

I didn't want to say it until I had the time to look it over again....

[VeritasSapere]

Hey, if there's another cryptocurrency that occurs to me as decentralized "sound money", has robust network security and healthy velocity of money, I'm all for it. At this point, I don't see any real competition for bitcoin. And should some altcoin overtake bitcoin in adoption, I'm all for that, too. This type of argument just boils down to more irrational fear that we aren't acting quickly enough. But bitcoin is an economy, with many stakeholders who deserve consideration in the matter. Emphasis should be on core values like decentralization, consensus and network security -- not urgency to compete with other cryptocurrencies.

There are many alternative currencies that are technically superior to Bitcoin, some have even solved the problems of scalability and some of the aspects of governance. Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum, you might be willing to spend $100 per transaction but I do not believe that the majority would do so. Especially considering that alternatives do exist where we can transact much cheaper and also with much more anonymity. Therefore it is not a irrational fear to think that Bitcoin should compete with any other alternatives in the real world.

I would add  financial freedom to this list of core values as well. I think that if we do not increase the block size it will compromise the principle of decentralization. Because reliance on third parties should be seen as a form of centralization.

This limit should be determined by the limits that exist within our technology at the time.

Don't you think coding an 8GB block size limit is jumping the gun a bit?

I do think that it might be jumping the gun a bit, but when I am in a position where I have to choose between 8GB blocks in twenty years from now or keeping the one megabyte restriction in place, I do prefer BIP101 over the Core implementation in this case. It is good to keep in mind that it will still only be at sixteen megabyte in more then four years from now. If there are any problems the block size can be decreased through a soft fork, this mechanism has already been implemented within BIP101. I would be fine with a two megabyte starting point for BIP101.

I do not necessary think that BIP101 is the best technical solution, however right now it is the only alternative client that is proposing to increase the block size through consensus. Which is why I keep stressing the point that I would support a third option as soon as it becomes real, especially if that third alternative would represent a compromise between these two extreme positions. Try and understand that I have formulated this position using a realist political philosophy and that from this perspective and discipline of thought, what I am saying is not incorrect.

[brg444]

There are many alternative currencies that are technically superior to Bitcoin, some have even solved the problems of scalability and some of the aspects of governance.

What  Where 

Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum, you might be willing to spend $100 per transaction but I do not believe that the majority would do so.

The majority doesn't matter, I know your brain is poisoned with democracy but that's not how it works. In an economy the people holding the wealth, the rich, decide, whether you like it or not.

Especially considering that alternatives do exist where we can transact much cheaper and also with much more anonymity. Therefore it is not a irrational fear to think that Bitcoin should compete with any other alternatives in the real world.

Again I ask: What  Where  (okay maybe Monero for anonymity but their adaptive block size is still very much an experiment AFAIK)

I would add  financial freedom to this list of core values as well. I think that if we do not increase the block size it will compromise the principle of decentralization. Because reliance on third parties should be seen as a form of centralization.

Well at least you get this. How is it you propose then to make everyone reliant on SPV wallets and third party services because they cannot afford to run their own nodes?

I do think that it might be jumping the gun a bit, but when I am in a position where I have to choose between 8GB blocks in twenty years from now or keeping the one megabyte restriction in place, I do prefer BIP101 over the Core implementation in this case.

We could careless about your decision on a false dichotomy.

If there are any problems the block size can be decreased through a soft fork

That will never happen for various obvious reasons.

Try and understand that I have formulated this position using a realist political philosophy and that from this perspective and discipline of thought, what I am saying is not incorrect.

You've repeatedly made comments that were incorrect.

[poeEDgar]

You make some good points, in terms of how do we define low cost, however if we did not increase the block size at all and there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive, this most certainly can not be defined as low cost.

The logical problem here is that you are using a subjective definition to define "low cost." Whether the cost is "prohibitively expensive" is, of course, subjective. $.05 may be prohibitive for some. $100 may be prohibitive for another.

This is not a logical problem, since the path we choose for Bitcoin is based on the ideology we hold. Decentralisation and freedom might be the ideology we hold, but it is a subjective position, not one borne from science but philosophy and ethics. These questions are political in nature. Therefore what we consider to be "low cost" is indeed subjective. However most rational ideologies would consider $100 to expensive if our goal is to have more people use the Bitcoin blockchain directly. This premise however is entirely based on our ideology and it is therefore entirely subjective as it should be.

The logical problem is arguing that fees could ever be "prohibitively expensive" if we don't have a standard definition of "expensive." So yes, this boils down to an ideological issue.

I was responding to the idea that "[if] there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive." Logically, the former only entails the latter once we have formed a standard definition of "low cost" or "expensive." This is likely impossible.

In a heavily censored, totalitarian world, many people might be happy to pay $100 to make payments in any amount that cannot be externally controlled.

In a world where there is a free market of cryptocurrencies people would just choose to use another cryptocurrency instead of paying such a fee. Bitcoin is not guaranteed its success, it must still compete with other cryptocurrencies.

Hey, if there's another cryptocurrency that occurs to me as decentralized "sound money", has robust network security and healthy velocity of money, I'm all for it. At this point, I don't see any real competition for bitcoin. And should some altcoin overtake bitcoin in adoption, I'm all for that, too. This type of argument just boils down to more irrational fear that we aren't acting quickly enough. But bitcoin is an economy, with many stakeholders who deserve consideration in the matter. Emphasis should be on core values like decentralization, consensus and network security -- not urgency to compete with other cryptocurrencies.

There are many alternative currencies that are technically superior to Bitcoin, some have even solved the problems of scalability and some of the aspects of governance. Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum, you might be willing to spend $100 per transaction but I do not believe that the majority would do so. Especially considering that alternatives do exist where we can transact much cheaper and also with much more anonymity. Therefore it is not a irrational fear to think that Bitcoin should compete with any other alternatives in the real world.

Feel free to use those "superior" implementations, then. I wish you the greatest of success. I see no reason to at the present time. And those of us with a considerable stake in bitcoin have no interest in using altcoins as an excuse to fuel reckless approaches to scaling.

Hey, if there's another cryptocurrency that occurs to me as decentralized "sound money", has robust network security and healthy velocity of money, I'm all for it. At this point, I don't see any real competition for bitcoin. And should some altcoin overtake bitcoin in adoption, I'm all for that, too...Emphasis should be on core values like decentralization, consensus and network security -- not urgency to compete with other cryptocurrencies.

I would add  financial freedom to this list of core values as well. I think that if we do not increase the block size it will compromise the principle of decentralization. Because reliance on third parties should be seen as a form of centralization.

Financial freedom -- do you mean "low cost?" If so, the burden is on you to prove that the purpose of bitcoin is about some kind of "socioeconomic" (rather than political, or similar) freedom. I think you will find many opponents on that front.

I'm confused. You are suggesting that increased block size = less centralization?

This limit should be determined by the limits that exist within our technology at the time.

Don't you think coding an 8GB block size limit is jumping the gun a bit?

I do think that it might be jumping the gun a bit, but when I am in a position where I have to choose between 8GB blocks in twenty years from now or keeping the one megabyte restriction in place, I do prefer BIP101 over the Core implementation in this case. It is good to keep in mind that it will still only be at sixteen megabyte in more then four years from now. If there are any problems the block size can be decreased through a soft fork, this mechanism has already been implemented within BIP101. I would be fine with a two megabyte starting point for BIP101. I do not necessary think that BIP101 is the best technical solution, however right now it is the only alternative client that is proposing to increase the block size through consensus. Which is why I keep stressing the point that I would support a third option as soon as it becomes real, especially if that third alternative would represent a compromise between these two extreme positions. Try and understand that I have formulated this position using a realist political philosophy and that from this perspective and discipline of thought, what I am saying is not incorrect.

Sorry, but you keep repeating the same argument. BIP101 is a reckless, technically unsound implementation. That you keep supporting it based purely out of political spite is simply sad. I am glad the Core devs have not stooped to the level of responding to these political arguments.

So you'd rather create arbitrarily large limits now, so we can fork them back down after serious lapses in network security? (Can you guarantee network security in an 8GB environment? How?) As one example, is waiting for mass orphaning of blocks to appear > waiting for transaction volume to warrant raising the limit?

What did Nick Szabo call that -- the Mark Karpeles formula?

If you must support one of the BIPs, the only responsible approach is BIP102.

[DooMAD]

If you must support one of the BIPs, the only responsible approach is BIP102.

Of the official BIPs, that's least worthwhile.  For all the accusations of BIP101 being nothing more than kicking the can down the road, BIP102 is the same act, but barely giving it a nudge.  It would only mean revisiting the issue later.  I'd much prefer a dynamic cap that responds with increases or decreases as necessary.  How about this revision to upal's BIP1xx?  

Good job OP! I've seen this discussion about dynamic block size about 2 years ago, but no one was able to introduce it formally.

I would prefer the proposal 1 (keep it simple) with some modifications, in order to not have a unnecessary block size. Imagine an actual block size of 20mb. The next jump would be 40mb to just use maybe 22mb.

I suggest to sum a discrete amount to Maxblock size (e.g 12.5%) up to doubling it the current day (~next 144 blocks).

Code:

If more than 50% of block's size, found in the first 2000 of the last difficulty period, is more than 90% MaxBlockSize
    MaxBlockSize = MaxBlockSize+ 12.5% 
    Limit = Double MaxBlockSize_last_144

I think increasing by discrete amounts can damp the system, making the block size more predicable and reducing the tx fee gambling.

The same principle can be added to cut block size.

I can understand if the original idea of doubling every two weeks would be in conflict with your conservative approach, so would this 12.5% proposal be more acceptable?

[VeritasSapere]

There are many alternative currencies that are technically superior to Bitcoin, some have even solved the problems of scalability and some of the aspects of governance.

What  Where 

Bitshares, Ethereum, Dash. There are many more projects like this that are also very inovative.

Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum, you might be willing to spend $100 per transaction but I do not believe that the majority would do so.

The majority doesn't matter, I know your brain is poisoned with democracy but that's not how it works. In an economy the people holding the wealth, the rich, decide, whether you like it or not.

I agree that it is the economic majority that decides on consensus within the Bitcoin protocol, which is a form of democracy. I do not think that the economic majority would want to pay $100 per transaction that is my point.

Especially considering that alternatives do exist where we can transact much cheaper and also with much more anonymity. Therefore it is not a irrational fear to think that Bitcoin should compete with any other alternatives in the real world.

Again I ask: What  Where  (okay maybe Monero for anonymity but their adaptive block size is still very much an experiment AFAIK)

Monero, Shadow Cash, Dash and many more.

I would add  financial freedom to this list of core values as well. I think that if we do not increase the block size it will compromise the principle of decentralization. Because reliance on third parties should be seen as a form of centralization.

Well at least you get this. How is it you propose then to make everyone reliant on SPV wallets and third party services because they cannot afford to run their own nodes?

Most people do not even run full nodes today, and personally I would be able to continue to run my full nodes even with the larger blocksize. It would be better if most people would be reliant on SPV wallets, as opososed to being reliant on third parties, which is what would happen if we do not increase the block size, and if we did need third parties to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain directly what would even be the point in running a full node in the first place.

I do think that it might be jumping the gun a bit, but when I am in a position where I have to choose between 8GB blocks in twenty years from now or keeping the one megabyte restriction in place, I do prefer BIP101 over the Core implementation in this case.

We could careless about your decision on a false dichotomy.

If it is a false dichotomy, please link me a client that I can run today which has a mechanism in place for a hard fork which I can use for mining as well. You now are in a position to prove me wrong, with evidence that should exist if what you are saying is correct, if this is indeed a false dichotomy it would mean there are no other options. So please prove me wrong, you have the perfect opportunity to do so now.

If there are any problems the block size can be decreased through a soft fork

That will never happen for various obvious reasons.

I do not see why it would be impossible to do a soft fork if the blocksize does indeed become an issue.

Try and understand that I have formulated this position using a realist political philosophy and that from this perspective and discipline of thought, what I am saying is not incorrect.

You've repeatedly made comments that were incorrect.

Then prove me wrong.

[poeEDgar]

If you must support one of the BIPs, the only responsible approach is BIP102.

Of the official BIPs, that's least worthwhile.  For all the accusations of BIP101 being nothing more than kicking the can down the road, BIP102 is the same act, but barely giving it a nudge.  It would only mean revisiting the issue later.  I'd much prefer a dynamic cap that responds with increases or decreases as necessary.  How about this revision to upal's BIP1xx?

I don't think anyone is arguing that BIP101 is kicking the can down the road -- more so that it recklessly tries to map out the end of the road today in 2015. As I said, from an engineering perspective, the only responsible approach is an incremental one. Why are people so damn terrified of "revisiting the issue later?" That's not a legitimate excuse to push unsound solutions.

A dynamic option is really nice in theory, but unfortunately the algorithm is likely very easy to attack. I think much more work needs to be done to form a robust solution.

[DooMAD]

If you must support one of the BIPs, the only responsible approach is BIP102.

Of the official BIPs, that's least worthwhile.  For all the accusations of BIP101 being nothing more than kicking the can down the road, BIP102 is the same act, but barely giving it a nudge.  It would only mean revisiting the issue later.  I'd much prefer a dynamic cap that responds with increases or decreases as necessary.  How about this revision to upal's BIP1xx?

I don't think anyone is arguing that BIP101 is kicking the can down the road -- more so that it recklessly tries to map out the end of the road today in 2015. As I said, from an engineering perspective, the only responsible approach is an incremental one. Why are people so damn terrified of "revisiting the issue later?" That's not a legitimate excuse to push unsound solutions.

A dynamic option is really nice in theory, but unfortunately the algorithm is likely very easy to attack. I think much more work needs to be done to form a robust solution.

I don't see how it would be "very easy to attack".  In order to artificially manipulate the blocksize higher, you would have to sustain the attack over a long period, otherwise the blocksize would simply reduce again when you stop.  Perhaps look into it a little more closely before dismissing it so quickly.

[VeritasSapere]

I would add  financial freedom to this list of core values as well. I think that if we do not increase the block size it will compromise the principle of decentralization. Because reliance on third parties should be seen as a form of centralization.

Financial freedom -- do you mean "low cost?" If so, the burden is on you to prove that the purpose of bitcoin is about some kind of "socioeconomic" (rather than political, or similar) freedom. I think you will find many opponents on that front.

I'm confused. You are suggesting that increased block size = less centralization?

When I say financial freedom, I am not referring to this meaning low cost, It is as you say conceptualized more like a political freedom.

Yes, I am saying that increasing the block size will lead to less centralization compared to keeping the block size at one megabyte. Since I do not think that this will increase mining centralization any more then it already is because miners do not run full nodes, the pools do. If more people can use Bitcoin more people will have reasons to run full nodes. Do not misunderstand what I am saying this is certainly is a balancing act. However I would consider leaving the blocksize where it is now much worse in terms of decentralization over the long term. Being reliant on third parties in order to even use Bitcoin, and it being prohibitively expensive to even use the blockchain directly should also be considered as a sacrifice of decentralization. The truth is that both paths lead to increased centralization, I just think that increasing the block size would lead to less centralization overall. I explain this in more detail in the thread I started here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

This limit should be determined by the limits that exist within our technology at the time.

Don't you think coding an 8GB block size limit is jumping the gun a bit?

I do think that it might be jumping the gun a bit, but when I am in a position where I have to choose between 8GB blocks in twenty years from now or keeping the one megabyte restriction in place, I do prefer BIP101 over the Core implementation in this case. It is good to keep in mind that it will still only be at sixteen megabyte in more then four years from now. If there are any problems the block size can be decreased through a soft fork, this mechanism has already been implemented within BIP101. I would be fine with a two megabyte starting point for BIP101. I do not necessary think that BIP101 is the best technical solution, however right now it is the only alternative client that is proposing to increase the block size through consensus. Which is why I keep stressing the point that I would support a third option as soon as it becomes real, especially if that third alternative would represent a compromise between these two extreme positions. Try and understand that I have formulated this position using a realist political philosophy and that from this perspective and discipline of thought, what I am saying is not incorrect.

Sorry, but you keep repeating the same argument. BIP101 is a reckless, technically unsound implementation. That you keep supporting it based purely out of political spite is simply sad. I am glad the Core devs have not stooped to the level of responding to these political arguments.

I think they should respond to these types of political arguments.

So you'd rather create arbitrarily large limits now, so we can fork them back down after serious lapses in network security? (Can you guarantee network security in an 8GB environment? How?) As one example, is waiting for mass orphaning of blocks to appear > waiting for transaction volume to warrant raising the limit?

What did Nick Szabo call that -- the Mark Karpeles formula?

If you must support one of the BIPs, the only responsible approach is BIP102.

I would support BIP102 over BIP101 as a compromise, I would actually prefer BIP102 if the 32 megabyte limit was removed. However right now it is not a viable option, since no client has implemented BIP102 and no mechanism for the hard fork towards BIP102 has even been developed. That is why BIP102 is not a real choice yet.