Damn Adam,
I'm surprised you let this thread turn into another cesspool of debate.
lol i was adding fuel to the fire b4.
the idea that blockstream was going to "veto" the roundtable consensus, and core had no intention of having a 2MB blockchain, had everyone going ape shit, including me...
Segwit is 1.7MB blocks (separated into two data structures that combine to 1.7 and thus create a "virtual" 1MB - which isn't 1 but 1.7 to 3mb - depending the use scenario ) and will be online pretty soon.
What's there to be grumpy about? A 300 kilobytes difference? Why are you acting like the 1.7mb is not even an increase at all and only a "traditional" block increase is? If I save 1.7mb of txs in my disk, it doesn't matter if it is saved on one or two files. The only thing that matters is that they are 1.7mb and that tx/s capacity rises by 60%+.
You get immediate increase AND tx malleability fix AND future increase AND the assurance that political fork attempts will be buried on the spot to prevent market clusterfucks like those induced by Gavin and Hearn.
You want Back to completely control every single core dev or speak for them? That can't happen but the likelihood of an agreement (not for the immediate increase - that's pretty much a given, we are talking about the future increase) is very high to ensure the stability of the system and the economy.
I'd be more worried about those who, under the pretext of urgency try to create the conditions for a political takeover. What urgency anyway? "blocks are full"? And blocks can't be full if they are 2 or 4 if they get spammed for near zero cost? Of course they can. If a store hangs a sign that says "Free shit every day", it will be full every day by those coming to take these free shit off the shelves - same for service oriented businesses.
Bitcoin (as a protocol, whether it is about BTC, LTC, Dash implementations) creates, by necessity, an expensive network to operate which is highly inefficient as a tradeoff for its decentralized nature. Free shit policy is incompatible with it because near zero cost txs = near zero cost abuse. Even near zero cost sybil attack / near zero cost unmasking of mixing parties for mixing purposes.
When you read the latest classic roadmap where they say "oh we will FIX the full blocks", you are like W T F are they talking about? You have the store, hanging a "free shit everyday" sign and people are crowding it. What difference does it make if you make the store twice bigger and you give twice the stuff? It'll still be crowded.
The only realistic approach to fixing full blocks is to increase fees to something that is not free or practically free/near zero cost. Either in the protocol or if miners start discarding txs that don't pay very well.
if it was up to me, I'd probably make a proposal like
"we can go to 2MB total capacity (including segwit) if protocol-enforced fees are set to X
"we can go to 3MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Y (which is >X)
"we can go to 4MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Z (which is >Y)
In addition to the above I'd issue a miners recommendation to avoid mining very low cost txs / this could also be done through a default setting. I'd issue a new recommendation if price, say, went 5-10x.
This can provide both expansion space and relative protection from near-zero-cost abuse, plus align with the future requirement where it is a necessity to have tx fee generation in order for the network to be sustainable. No fees = you are fucked, or you have "free-shit-for-everyone" populists promoting the idea that "
we were better off in the subsidy era, and we must continue coin generation forevah instead of increasing tx fees, and, you know, fuck this 21mn coin limit, that's only for the few wealthy hoarders, and the small fish should not have to see btc as store of value but rather as economic freedom to transact cheaply, so yeah, screw the investors, viva la revolution and infinite coins for the lolz to have our cheap / near free bloat spam txs".
Poll
