List of reasons we DO need bigger block sizes

[jonald_fyookball]

1. So Bitcoin can scale on the main chain.  Anything else is not decentralized and is not Bitcoin, until proven otherwise.
Any other way to scale Bitcoin, even if theoretically sound, hasn't been battle tested for years like Bitcoin.

2. Because adoption will be hampered if we don't, and we never know when the next big adoption wave will come.

3. Bigger blocks = More transactions = more fees = more security

4. Because the blocksize limit was supposed to be a spam measure only.  Having any blocksize limit at all is already a compromise.  

5. Related to #4: Blocksize shouldn't be part of the consensus layer anyway.  Let the miners sort it out.

6. Blocks are close to .5 MB on average and have doubled in the last 12 months and unless the trend changes,
we'll be completely out of room in another year.

[Netnox]

I think the majority agrees that we need bigger blocks, those who don't really don't care about bitcoin imo, more for their own beneficial reasons.

[Mickeyb]

1. So Bitcoin can scale on the main chain.  Anything else is not decentralized and is not Bitcoin, until proven otherwise.
Any other way to scale Bitcoin, even if theoretically sound, hasn't been battle tested for years like Bitcoin.

2. Because adoption will be hampered if we don't, and we never know when the next big adoption wave will come.

3. Bigger blocks = More transactions = more fees = more security

4. Because the blocksize limit was supposed to be a spam measure only.  Having any blocksize limit at all is already a compromise.  

5. Related to #4: Blocksize shouldn't be part of the consensus layer anyway.  Let the miners sort it out.

6. Blocks are close to .5 MB on average and have doubled in the last 12 months and unless the trend changes,
we'll be completely out of room in another year.

You are tight about all of the points above. But all of these 6 points = centralization. I was and still am for the bigger blocks, but reading more and more, this centralization thing keeps bugging me even more, especially because we are already centralized enough (60% of our mining is based in China).

I don't know what to think anymore, I think the best would just be to stop thinking about everything and hope for some miracle solution by the devs!

[GermanGiant]

I dont see a requirement of listing it out. This chart explains it all...

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

[GermanGiant]

You are tight about all of the points above. But all of these 6 points = centralization. I was and still am for the bigger blocks, but reading more and more, this centralization thing keeps bugging me even more, especially because we are already centralized enough (60% of our mining is based in China).

I don't know what to think anymore, I think the best would just be to stop thinking about everything and hope for some miracle solution by the devs!

Primary cause of centralization is pool mining. If you want to break the centralization due to pool mining, cap the difficulty, not the blocksize.

[adamstgBit]

You are tight about all of the points above. But all of these 6 points = centralization. I was and still am for the bigger blocks, but reading more and more, this centralization thing keeps bugging me even more, especially because we are already centralized enough (60% of our mining is based in China).

I don't know what to think anymore, I think the best would just be to stop thinking about everything and hope for some miracle solution by the devs!

Primary cause of centralization is pool mining. If you want to break the centralization due to pool mining, cap the difficulty, not the blocksize.

block limit would need to increase 1-2 orders of magnitude to actually change the current mining landscape

[jonald_fyookball]

1. So Bitcoin can scale on the main chain.  Anything else is not decentralized and is not Bitcoin, until proven otherwise.
Any other way to scale Bitcoin, even if theoretically sound, hasn't been battle tested for years like Bitcoin.

2. Because adoption will be hampered if we don't, and we never know when the next big adoption wave will come.

3. Bigger blocks = More transactions = more fees = more security

4. Because the blocksize limit was supposed to be a spam measure only.  Having any blocksize limit at all is already a compromise.  

5. Related to #4: Blocksize shouldn't be part of the consensus layer anyway.  Let the miners sort it out.

6. Blocks are close to .5 MB on average and have doubled in the last 12 months and unless the trend changes,
we'll be completely out of room in another year.

You are tight about all of the points above. But all of these 6 points = centralization. I was and still am for the bigger blocks, but reading more and more, this centralization thing keeps bugging me even more, especially because we are already centralized enough (60% of our mining is based in China).

I don't know what to think anymore, I think the best would just be to stop thinking about everything and hope for some miracle solution by the devs!

Offchain scaling adds more centralization than anything else IMO, because its introducing reliance on third party services just for normal transactions.

[DooMAD]

The greatest benefit of supporting larger block sizes is that it causes tremendous annoyance to Mircea Popescu and his merry little band of crony fanatics:

link

Because it is my considered opinion that Bitcoin is perfect as it is and that it doesn't need to be "fixed" to provide tremendous value to humanity at large.

It's time to be greedy and defend our safe-haven

I see a fair amount of utility in having an XT fork which siphoned off a sizable number of 'bitcoiners' who are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system and are mostly MultiBitch-class users who add no value.

the peasants' desire to trade security for adoption is met with indifference/hostility/scorn from the people who matter.

Keep Bitcoin Elite!™

The wealthy will continue to rule Bitcoin and there is no amount of "new users" tears that will change this.

A "one-percenter blockchain" is the only rational vision for Bitcoin, whether you like it or not. Fortunately for the first time ever you will be allowed a seat at their table. It will cost you some if you wanna trade with them but you will have other options to enjoy the security of your wealth.

Bitcoin isn't for everybody.

Who else is looking forward to not sharing a chain with these vile creatures? 

[Mickeyb]

1. So Bitcoin can scale on the main chain.  Anything else is not decentralized and is not Bitcoin, until proven otherwise.
Any other way to scale Bitcoin, even if theoretically sound, hasn't been battle tested for years like Bitcoin.

2. Because adoption will be hampered if we don't, and we never know when the next big adoption wave will come.

3. Bigger blocks = More transactions = more fees = more security

4. Because the blocksize limit was supposed to be a spam measure only.  Having any blocksize limit at all is already a compromise.  

5. Related to #4: Blocksize shouldn't be part of the consensus layer anyway.  Let the miners sort it out.

6. Blocks are close to .5 MB on average and have doubled in the last 12 months and unless the trend changes,
we'll be completely out of room in another year.

You are tight about all of the points above. But all of these 6 points = centralization. I was and still am for the bigger blocks, but reading more and more, this centralization thing keeps bugging me even more, especially because we are already centralized enough (60% of our mining is based in China).

I don't know what to think anymore, I think the best would just be to stop thinking about everything and hope for some miracle solution by the devs!

Offchain scaling adds more centralization than anything else IMO, because its introducing reliance on third party services just for normal transactions.

I know this and that's why this block size increase doesn't have a very effective solution, at least not yet. I hope the solution will be found though, so that we don't have to, in order to get something, sacrifice something on the other side.

[GermanGiant]

1. So Bitcoin can scale on the main chain.  Anything else is not decentralized and is not Bitcoin, until proven otherwise.
Any other way to scale Bitcoin, even if theoretically sound, hasn't been battle tested for years like Bitcoin.

2. Because adoption will be hampered if we don't, and we never know when the next big adoption wave will come.

3. Bigger blocks = More transactions = more fees = more security

4. Because the blocksize limit was supposed to be a spam measure only.  Having any blocksize limit at all is already a compromise.  

5. Related to #4: Blocksize shouldn't be part of the consensus layer anyway.  Let the miners sort it out.

6. Blocks are close to .5 MB on average and have doubled in the last 12 months and unless the trend changes,
we'll be completely out of room in another year.

You are tight about all of the points above. But all of these 6 points = centralization. I was and still am for the bigger blocks, but reading more and more, this centralization thing keeps bugging me even more, especially because we are already centralized enough (60% of our mining is based in China).

I don't know what to think anymore, I think the best would just be to stop thinking about everything and hope for some miracle solution by the devs!

Offchain scaling adds more centralization than anything else IMO, because its introducing reliance on third party services just for normal transactions.

Lightning is going to introduce trusted supernodes. Follow ScalingBitcoin for more details...

[jonald_fyookball]

1. So Bitcoin can scale on the main chain.  Anything else is not decentralized and is not Bitcoin, until proven otherwise.
Any other way to scale Bitcoin, even if theoretically sound, hasn't been battle tested for years like Bitcoin.

2. Because adoption will be hampered if we don't, and we never know when the next big adoption wave will come.

3. Bigger blocks = More transactions = more fees = more security

4. Because the blocksize limit was supposed to be a spam measure only.  Having any blocksize limit at all is already a compromise.  

5. Related to #4: Blocksize shouldn't be part of the consensus layer anyway.  Let the miners sort it out.

6. Blocks are close to .5 MB on average and have doubled in the last 12 months and unless the trend changes,
we'll be completely out of room in another year.

You are tight about all of the points above. But all of these 6 points = centralization. I was and still am for the bigger blocks, but reading more and more, this centralization thing keeps bugging me even more, especially because we are already centralized enough (60% of our mining is based in China).

I don't know what to think anymore, I think the best would just be to stop thinking about everything and hope for some miracle solution by the devs!

Offchain scaling adds more centralization than anything else IMO, because its introducing reliance on third party services just for normal transactions.

Lightning is going to introduce trusted supernodes. Follow ScalingBitcoin for more details...

Trusted supernodes.