There is currently no need for a BIP 101 implementation as the 8MB blocksize is way too high and will lead to a dramatic-unnecessary increase of the blockchain size. The majority of the pools don't want the 8MB increase, isn't that enough reason to stop this nonsense?
Either way, the Core devs should come with a solution and that must be quick. This is not good for the community and the image of Bitcoin. I hope there will be a change to 2MB blocks as that is an appropriate midway solution to keep the people happy.
Blocks are not set at a given size, it is an 8MB maximum. There will not magically be a huge number of 8MB blocks just because the maximum is raised. Satoshi designed bitcoin without a maximum block size at all. If it is unneeded, then blocks will remain below 1MB and it won't even matter. When it is needed, the network will be ready for it instead of having this battle again when the 2MB boundary is getting pushed. Making blocks 8MB as an attack would be incredibly expensive, just like most other attacks that don't happen IRL due to their cost. Quite frankly, it seems obvious to me that the majority of anti-BIP101 users are running on fears propagated by a few people and groups who believe they can make more money if block sizes are kept lower (either by higher mining fees [vs more mining fees in bigger blocks] or by fees in their off-chain "solution" to the "problem"). IOW, the lack of 8 MB blocks and ongoing battle against them is as disgusting as the corporate politics in most "civilized" countries.
I do agree that it will have an impact on those who are trying to spam Bitcoin with massive amounts of shitty dust transactions. And it surely will make Bitcoin more future proof, but this whole discussion / keyboard fighting is splitting the community in 2 parts and will cause severe damage if there isn't a solution where both sides are happy with. Pools are maestro, and the majority of them clearly don't want BIP 101.
Why isn't it a better idea to raise the blocksize to 2MB for now, and then increase it with 1MB per year to keep up with the natural growth of Bitcoin?
Assuming they are accurate, some of the facts discussed here may be helpful:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1273567.0There are also opinions and perceived risks involved. For instance, if the block size is increased 2MB for now and then 1MB per year,
when should that stop? What if the 1 MB / year outruns technology and we have to have another hard fork to discontinue it because we guessed wrong? Is there even a proposal available to instigate that hard fork? If we just hard fork to 2MB, then we will inevitably need to hard fork again (this may be argued for 8MB as well, but only on a much larger time table).
That's definitely a good point you have there. However, the BIP 101 will double from 8MB to 16MB after just two years. Which is even worse than the 1MB per year growth. One thing is for sure, this will probably not be solved within a reasonable amount of months. It will only cause more people to split up and join the BIP 101 or BIP 100 side. I hope the devs will find a good mid way solution that will end this discussion.
