rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[rpietila]

Does that mean you are going to force people who do not want to be controlled by this computer to move elsewhere? Or can they stay where they are and live by their own rules? Is this a purely voluntary system? Opt-in, opt-out when you want? Abide by the computer's decisions when you want, don't abide by them when you don't? Or will there be an enforcement mechanism? If so, how do you enforce the rules?

Hard to believe he can mean serious with that idea.

[1714491668]

1714491668

[1714491668]

1714491668

[1714491668]

1714491668

[1714491668]

1714491668

[statoshi]

block size limit is simply too small for Bitcoin to maintain reasonable growth, and it will hit a bottleneck just trying to process normal business.

If it's about 260,000 transactions per day, it is indeed too small. If it can be increased, I favor increasing. And also setting in stone the increasing schedule so that no further vote or community decision is needed ever concerning this matter.

Perhaps a block size limit that periodically self-adjusts based upon a function that takes as input the historical number of transactions per unit time?

http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/02/bitcoin-block-size-thoughts.html

[wachtwoord]

Does that mean you are going to force people who do not want to be controlled by this computer to move elsewhere? Or can they stay where they are and live by their own rules? Is this a purely voluntary system? Opt-in, opt-out when you want? Abide by the computer's decisions when you want, don't abide by them when you don't? Or will there be an enforcement mechanism? If so, how do you enforce the rules?

Hard to believe he can mean serious with that idea.

He's one of two on my igbore list. He's a Bitcoin begging, early adopter jealous idiot. Please ignore him.

[ArticMine]

...

block size limit is simply too small for Bitcoin to maintain reasonable growth, and it will hit a bottleneck just trying to process normal business.

If it's about 260,000 transactions per day, it is indeed too small. If it can be increased, I favor increasing. And also setting in stone the increasing schedule so that no further vote or community decision is needed ever concerning this matter.

Yes 260,000 transactions per day, 3 transactions per second, is the practical limit. The maximum theoretical limit assuming all transactions were ideally optimized is closer to 600,000 thousand per day or 7 transactions per second. Is a technical solution that meets the above quoted requirements possible? Yes there are many including getting rid of the limit altogether as Gavin has proposed. Furthermore a solution very close to above that meets the above quoted requirements is part of the implementation of the CryptoNote alt-coins including its leader XMR (Monero); however virtually all other alt-coins suffer from this very same limitation. The problem is social. There is a significant and influential point of view within the Bitcoin community that is opposed to or at best very resistant to making this change. Furthermore this debate is very old. Here is a post from 2010 that addresses this issue and is in many respects highly prophetic.

Hello all,

Recently I just posted on another thread to express my concern about this subject, but I thought it might deserve a topic of its own.

This block size rule is something really "dangerous" to the protocol. Rules like that are almost impossible to change once there are many clients implementing the protocol. Take SMTP as an example. Several improvements could be done to it, but how? It's impractical to synchronize the change.

And, well, if we ever want to scale, such limit will have to grow. I really think we should address this problem while there is only one client used by everyone, and changes in the protocol are still feasible, because in the future we may not be able to.

As far as I understand, one of the purposes of this block size limit was to avoid flooding. Another purpose as well, as mentioned here, is to keep the transaction fees not "too small" in order to create an incentive for block generation once the coin production isn't that interesting anymore. (if only a limited number of transactions can enter a block, those with the smallest fees won't be quickly processed...)

So, if we really need a block size limit, and if we also need it to scale, why not making such limit so that it adjusts itself to the transaction rate, as the difficulty of generation adjust itself to the generation rate?

Some of the smart guys in this forum could come up with an adjustment formula, taking in consideration the total size of all transactions in the latest X blocks, and calculating which should be the block size limit for the next X blocks. Just like the difficulty factor.This way we avoid this "dangerous" constant in the protocol.
One of the things the smart guys would have to decide is how rigorous will the adjustment be. Should the adjustment be done in order to always leave enough room to all transactions in the next block, or should blocks be "tight" enough to make sure that some transactions will have to wait, thus pushing up the transaction fees?

Okay, I do realize that it would allow flooders to slowly increase the limit, but, what for? As long as generators aren't accepting 0-fee transactions, a flooder would have to pay to perform his attack.

So, what do you think?

I take the point of view that the 1 MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin makes no more sense than limiting the RAM in a personal computer to 640K http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/09/08/640k-enough/ for the very same reason: Moore's Law. As a baby boomer, I happen to remember that debate well and had to deal with its aftermath.

The time for endless arguments and debates on this issue is over, since we are fast approaching this limit. The time for action is now. This brings me to my next point since this is after all a thread in Speculation: How can Bitcoin investors profit from this and / or protect their XBT investment? There are two sides to consider here:

First (XBT bull) if one takes the 1 MB blocksize limit out of the equation the fundamentals for Bitcoin are otherwise very bullish. Furthermore the most likely scenario, although not certain is that the Bitcoin community will finally get its act together and deal with the 1MB blocksize limit. This would make moving out of XBT into fiat or precious metals a very risky move for a long time XBT investor. The second case (XBT bear) is that the Bitcoin community does not get its act together, we get close to the limit and fees start to rise as a result. It is here where a coin not encumbered by this limit will become highly desirable, and XMR (Monero) is the leading candidate. Now and this is critically important XMR must stand on its own merits with good reasons to appreciate in terms of XBT for reasons completely unrelated to the to the 1MB blocksize limit issue. It is for these reasons that after reviewing this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624223.0 and after performing my own independent due diligence on XMR that I have moved approximately 15%, by market value, of my XBT holdings into XMR. This is to both protect my XBT position and potentially profit not only from XMR making bronze or silver on its own merits, but from also the small chance of it actually making gold as a result of the turmoil associated with Bitcoin reaching the 1MB blocksize limit.

[ArticMine]

...

http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/02/bitcoin-block-size-thoughts.html

I actually dug up the old thread that led to that blog post back in 2013. For those who are interested here is the original thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0.

[BTCtrader71]

...

http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/02/bitcoin-block-size-thoughts.html

Jeff makes an argument that the block size should be a limited resource (akin to the 21 million limit) and that this will incentivize people to build layers on top of bitcoin. Perhaps experience will teach what was not obvious in the early days, which is that running into the transaction limit causes damage to bitcoin's utility that outweighs any benefit of encouraging "layers on top of bitcoin." His argument may or may not be correct, but it doesn't sound to me (a non programmer) to be some idiotic idea that is completely without merit. So here's my question: if the arguments put forth by Jeff in the above post do not stand the test of time, will the proponents of this idea will be too stupid to see it? Because if they CAN see it (and why wouldn't they?), then the problem will most likely be solved.

Sidenote: He also does not like feedback based methods, saying they can be easily gamed. It seems to me it would be easy to design a feedback based method that is prohibitively expensive to game. Just my initial reaction.

[BTCtrader71]

Suppose Monero (or a different alt) were to gain enough traction for it to appear inevitable that it would eventually topple bitcoin. How feasible would it be to fork bitcoin to adopt some or all features of Monero? iow, a merger of the first mover advantage of bitcoin with the technical advantages of Monero. I suppose this question has two parts: 1) What would be the technical feasibility of doing this? and 2) Would the community go along?
 

The chances of such a merger are zero. From a technical perspective the coins are very different, and the economic interests strongly align against this. More importantly such a merger would violate the most basic economic fundamentals of both coins. This means that such a merger would break all trust in the coins and yes could make them both worthless. Both communities would reject such a merger and for very good reasons.

What is more likely to happen here is that Bitcoin would have to fork to deal with the 1 MB Limit. Both coins would live side by side, compete and hopefully learn from each other. First mover is not everything. A very good example is the credit card industry. The first movers were Diner's Club and then American Express. Then came the later entrants including Visa and MasterCard. The first movers are still around but with vastly reduced market share.

The challenge for the Bitcoin is to deal with the 1 MB blocksize limit before the above happens and not become the American Express or even Diner's Club of crypto-currency.

Edit: Bitcoin might even fork in the middle of a boom, like it did the last time. After all it is way easier to get consensus when everyone is getting wealthier.

Suppose Monero (or a different alt) were to gain enough traction for it to appear inevitable that it would eventually topple bitcoin. How feasible would it be to fork bitcoin to adopt some or all features of Monero? iow, a merger of the first mover advantage of bitcoin with the technical advantages of Monero. I suppose this question has two parts: 1) What would be the technical feasibility of doing this? and 2) Would the community go along?

It is possible to clone any alt-coin and bootstrap it with a snapshot of the unspent outputs in the bitcoin blockchain using the spin-off method.  Using this technique, "Bitcoin the Ledger" could be preserved while "Bitcoin the Payment Network" could be replaced with new technology.  

When the spin-off is launched, bitcoin users will have coins in both systems.  The two coins will trade against each other on the open market.  If the community thinks the new technology is not worth the switch, they will sell these "free" spin-off coins, thereby killing the spin-off.  If the community feels the technology is a "must have," they will sell bitcoins in favour of the spin-off, thereby transfer the bulk of the wealth to the new network.

ArticMine - what do you think about the spin off method described in Peter R's post?

[ArticMine]

...
ArticMine - what do you think about the spin off method described in Peter R's post?

It is an interesting proposal that can work if there is a very clear vote and hence valuation one way or the other. Where it can get real messy and problematic is if there is close to an even split or even significant vote for the minority chain. Then the uncertainty created can cause a significant overall loss of trust. The reality is that a hard fork only works with strong consensus and my thought is that Peter R's proposal will expose that reality. Having said this it may in the end have to come down to a spin off method solution as a last resort.

Edit: The best solution is a hard fork with strong community consensus.

[BTCtrader71]

...
ArticMine - what do you think about the spin off method described in Peter R's post?

It is an interesting proposal that can work if there is a very clear vote and hence valuation one way or the other. Where it can get real messy and problematic is if there is close to an even split or even significant vote for the minority chain. Then the uncertainty created can cause a significant overall loss of trust. The reality is that a hard fork only works with strong consensus and my thought is that Peter R's proposal will expose that reality. Having said this it may in the end have to come down to a spin off method solution as a last resort.

It sounds like one of those drastic measures that would probably never actually have to be implemented. Having said that, one of the biggest if not the number one chief threat to bitcoin as a long term store of value is that it could get replaced by an alt. If that ever looked like it might actually happen, I would imagine it would not be difficult to reach a consensus that the above plan would be preferable to watching the value of bitcoin plummet. So it is comforting, at least, to know something like that MIGHT be implement-able.

So, my thought process tells me that perhaps the chief threat to bitcoin is not replacement by an alt, but rather, fragmentation of community consensus. (Which could be the result of threat from an alt, or could come from who knows what.) Methods of managing community consensus is a problem that seems very interesting, although I have not seen it much discussed.

[ArticMine]

...

http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/02/bitcoin-block-size-thoughts.html

Jeff makes an argument that the block size should be a limited resource (akin to the 21 million limit) and that this will incentivize people to build layers on top of bitcoin. Perhaps experience will teach what was not obvious in the early days, which is that running into the transaction limit causes damage to bitcoin's utility that outweighs any benefit of encouraging "layers on top of bitcoin." His argument may or may not be correct, but it doesn't sound to me (a non programmer) to be some idiotic idea that is completely without merit. So here's my question: if the arguments put forth by Jeff in the above post do not stand the test of time, will the proponents of this idea will be too stupid to see it? Because if they CAN see it (and why wouldn't they?), then the problem will most likely be solved.

Sidenote: He also does not like feedback based methods, saying they can be easily gamed. It seems to me it would be easy to design a feedback based method that is prohibitively expensive to game. Just my initial reaction.

Short sighted decisions of this nature happen all the time. The 640KB limit decision by Microsoft led to an an entire generation of computer users to have to deal with the consequences for close to 20 years (until the 3.x and 9.x versions of Microsoft Windows were retired in the mid 2000's). I must say that I got a few grey hairs dealing with "extended" and "expanded" memory in MS-DOS as a result.

...
ArticMine - what do you think about the spin off method described in Peter R's post?

It is an interesting proposal that can work if there is a very clear vote and hence valuation one way or the other. Where it can get real messy and problematic is if there is close to an even split or even significant vote for the minority chain. Then the uncertainty created can cause a significant overall loss of trust. The reality is that a hard fork only works with strong consensus and my thought is that Peter R's proposal will expose that reality. Having said this it may in the end have to come down to a spin off method solution as a last resort.

It sounds like one of those drastic measures that would probably never actually have to be implemented. Having said that, one of the biggest if not the number one chief threat to bitcoin as a long term store of value is that it could get replaced by an alt. If that ever looked like it might actually happen, I would imagine it would not be difficult to reach a consensus that the above plan would be preferable to watching the value of bitcoin plummet. So it is comforting, at least, to know something like that MIGHT be implement-able.

So, my thought process tells me that perhaps the chief threat to bitcoin is not replacement by an alt, but rather, fragmentation of community consensus. (Which could be the resestult of threat from an alt, or could come from who knows what.) Methods of managing community consensus is a problem that seems very interesting, although I have not seen it much discussed.

One of the most effective ways to get a community to pull together is a serious threat. This is just human nature and it is why there was strong consensus for the 2013 fork. So a fast rising alt may well generate the necessary consensus.

Edit: Managing and more importantly building community consensus is a very interesting topic on its own right. I must say this is not my best area of expertise as I am more the "geek" left brain type of person rather than the "people oriented" right brain type of person. There are others who are very good at this type of work and I respect them for their skills.

[BTCtrader71]

...
ArticMine - what do you think about the spin off method described in Peter R's post?

It is an interesting proposal that can work if there is a very clear vote and hence valuation one way or the other. Where it can get real messy and problematic is if there is close to an even split or even significant vote for the minority chain. Then the uncertainty created can cause a significant overall loss of trust. The reality is that a hard fork only works with strong consensus and my thought is that Peter R's proposal will expose that reality. Having said this it may in the end have to come down to a spin off method solution as a last resort.

It sounds like one of those drastic measures that would probably never actually have to be implemented. Having said that, one of the biggest if not the number one chief threat to bitcoin as a long term store of value is that it could get replaced by an alt. If that ever looked like it might actually happen, I would imagine it would not be difficult to reach a consensus that the above plan would be preferable to watching the value of bitcoin plummet. So it is comforting, at least, to know something like that MIGHT be implement-able.

So, my thought process tells me that perhaps the chief threat to bitcoin is not replacement by an alt, but rather, fragmentation of community consensus. (Which could be the result of threat from an alt, or could come from who knows what.) Methods of managing community consensus is a problem that seems very interesting, although I have not seen it much discussed.

One of the most effective ways to get a community to pull together is a serious threat. This is just human nature and it is why there was strong consensus for the 2013 fork. So a fast rising alt may well generate the necessary consensus.

Correct me if I'm wrong: when we talk about consensus, we mean consensus among the miners. And if the top mining pools agreed on another blocksize limit fork, the rest would probably follow. Correct?

[ArticMine]

Correct me if I'm wrong: when we talk about consensus, we mean consensus among the miners. And if the top mining pools agreed on another blocksize limit fork, the rest would probably follow. Correct?

Yes this is true; however it also requires at least the tacit approval of the individual miners who control the hash power. Then there is control over the nodes, code developers etc. My take is that this will require broad community consensus but in the end it will be the mining pools that have to implement it.

[BTCtrader71]

Correct me if I'm wrong: when we talk about consensus, we mean consensus among the miners. And if the top mining pools agreed on another blocksize limit fork, the rest would probably follow. Correct?

Yes this is true; however it also requires at least the tacit approval of the individual miners who control the hash power. Then there is control over the nodes, code developers etc. My take is that this will require broad community consensus but in the end it will be the mining pools that have to implement it.

I did some mining in 2013 and early 2014 just for the fun of it (lost money, of course) but I would probably just go with the fork that my mining pool went with. Unless I had some reason to be passionately opposed to the fork.

[BTCtrader71]

Edit: Managing and more importantly building community consensus is a very interesting topic on its own right. I must say this is not my best area of expertise as I am more the "geek" left brain type of person rather than the "people oriented" right brain type of person. There are others who are very good at this type of work and I respect them for their skills.

Well to be honest, I was thinking about the types of solutions that it would take a geek to dream up The kind of geek who thinks about graph theory and topology and dreams of images like this one:
http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/blogs/wiredenterprise/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/graph-hires1.png

So the geek imagines that each dot in the above image is a full node in the bitcoin network. Each node has the choice: either 1) to decide for himself or herself which version of the bitcoin client to implement, or 2) to leave that decision up to other nodes in the network who have more time to think about these things, and whose judgement you trust. For example, I might decide that I want to run whichever version that Jeff Garzik decides to run; or maybe I'll decide to run whichever version is run by a majority of [Jeff, Risto, Andreas, Gavin, and my friend the bitcoin enthusiast down the street]. Maybe I'll give two votes to Gavin, half to the guy down the street. All that would be represented on the graph by five directed arrows (of varying thickness) from my node to each of the 5 nodes controlled by those 5 people. You could always change the settings in real time. That way, if I read in the news that the Chinese this morning unleashed a surprise 51% attack, and their plan included capturing Andreas and forcing him to run the version of their choosing, then I and everyone else in the world (everyone who is following the news) could instantly remove his node from the list of trusted nodes. My girlfriend might decide that she doesn't feel like keeping track of all these crazy bitcoin personalities but she trusts me to do so, so she just programs her node to implement whichever version I implement.

The point of all this is to come up with a system such that:
- consensus is derived in a transparent fashion; it is clear who the decision makers are at any given point in time
- it does not require everyone to be paying attention; therefore does not require a crisis for changes to be made
- can implement minor changes in which only the major players are focusing their attention
- can implement major changes in which everyone is paying attention
- consensus can change quickly or slowly; either way, the decision process is transparent

Incidentally, a system similar to the above could be used to exclude nodes that were suspected of participating in a 51% attack. You would effectively end up with two big networks that were walled off from one another, e.g. one run by GHash and one run by everybody else. The world at large would follow the one not run by GHash so it wouldn't matter if they had 51% or 99%; they would be ignored by everyone.

This making any sense?

[aminorex]

This making any sense?

So far it sound like a recipe for fork salad.

[rpietila]

Who is proposing to leave the transaction cap alone (retain blocksize limit in 1MB), and why? (Where is the battle line? )

[rpietila]

Just thought this might be a good read.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[solex]

Who is proposing to leave the transaction cap alone (retain blocksize limit in 1MB), and why? (Where is the battle line? )

The primary argument to retain the 1MB limit is that smaller blocks helps ensure decentralization of Bitcoin. Lots of people rightly care about this.

As the average block size has increased the number of full nodes has been steadily declining. Once decentralization is lost then it is unlikely to be recovered. So this is a one-way path when changes are made which put decentralization at risk. The number of full nodes is in flux as they keep coming and going. Maybe there are about 8,000 at any one time. Ideally, this should not drop too low.  So, there is a trade-off between average block size and the number of full nodes. No one knows the whether there is a tipping point where a certain block size might suddenly cause a lot of nodes to disappear because of the volume of traffic. Consumer bandwidth is the key limiting factor.

The best way to keep blocks small is via fees, and the minimum fee was increased 1 year ago which got rid of a lot of the messaging spam which had tx volumes at >60k per day early in 2013. So fee increases have already allowed the block limit to remain longer than previously expected. The block limit has a use for its psychological effect of driving the fees market, competition for block space. The problem there is that the fees market may not work smoothly until the block reward is 6.25 or even 3.125 btc.

However, a fixed block limit is very dangerous because of the potential for ecosystem conditions to create a sudden volume spike into this bottleneck crippling transaction throughput, collapse the price and create a PR disaster which will hang like a cloud for years afterwards.

IMHO, at the very least the 1MB should increase in line with the global improvement in bandwidth speed, and should be about 3MB by now.
This can be done using block version numbers and a super-majority trigger, or the more primitive block height check. However, time is running out and it looks like the 1MB will be maxed out during Q2 2015.

[serje]

hmmm, interesting!
looking for (automation) industrial engineers?

Looking for people who can obey orders, smile, clean rooms, serve tables, cook, know wines, stand long hours in scorching sun, nitpick about petty amounts, do gardening, smile, drive cars, furnish rooms, clean toilets, empty trashbins, greet guests, empty ashtrays, water lawns, sell wines, do the laundry, smile, answer repetitious questions, clean floors, obey orders and smile.

Oh yes, and the starting pay is bad but the range goes up to 4000€/month.

As we are an equal opportunity employer, being an industrial engineer is not a disqualifier.

You ask for
people who can obey orders - 5/5
smile - 4/5
clean rooms   - 5/5
serve tables  - 4/5
cook  - 2/5 basic cooking ... mostly breakfast and some pastas
know wines  - I don't know wines
stand long hours in scorching sun - 5/5
nitpick about petty amounts - 4/5
do gardening - 4/5
smile - 4/5
drive cars - 5/5
furnish rooms - don't know exactly what you mean with this ... but if you want to let me decorate a room I can do that
clean toilets - 5/5
empty trash-bins - 5/5
greet guests - 5/5
empty ashtrays - 5/5
water lawns - 5/5
sell wines - I could sell them but I don't know all the details ... if the buyer knows what he wants i can sell him wine ... but I don't know what to recommend him
do the laundry - I'm not good at doing laundry ... one time I tried it and made my pants unwearable! But if someone can teach me I can learn!
smile - 4/5
answer repetitious questions - 5/5
clean floors - 5/5
obey orders and smile - 5/5

what I can offer extra ....
I'm a vodka passionate ... mostly for premium vodka
Organize parties for our guests
Offer VIP service to our guests (I've been in the best clubs in the world and I learned what VIP is about)
I can fix computers and stuff .... but I think everyone here knows that so I don't really consider this as a skill

Will come back with other skills if I remember them


P.S. I'm a morning person, I love to get up early!

Okay. Your work starts Thursday, next week. We can pay the taxi from Tallinn! If that is too early, any later day is also possible.

DEPARTURE
Budapest, Liszt Ferenc International (Terminal 2B) - Helsinki, Helsinki Vantaa (Terminal 2)
Wednesday 06 August 2014
AY756 Z 19:15 - 22:35
Economy cabin
Helsinki, Helsinki Vantaa (Terminal 2) - Tallinn, Lennart Meri
Wednesday 06 August 2014
AY2117 Z 23:45 - 00:20 (Thu)
Economy cabin
Total duration: 4h 05min
Basic
RETURN
Tallinn, Lennart Meri - Helsinki, Helsinki Vantaa (Terminal 2)
Tuesday 19 August 2014
AY2116 Z 21:30 - 22:05
Economy cabin
Helsinki, Helsinki Vantaa (Terminal 2) - Budapest, Liszt Ferenc International (Terminal 2B)
Wednesday 20 August 2014
AY753 Z 09:30 - 10:50 (Wed)
Economy cabin
Total duration: 14h 20min
Basic

Just to let everyone know I am serious!

[rpietila]

hmmm, interesting!
looking for (automation) industrial engineers?

Looking for people who can obey orders, smile, clean rooms, serve tables, cook, know wines, stand long hours in scorching sun, nitpick about petty amounts, do gardening, smile, drive cars, furnish rooms, clean toilets, empty trashbins, greet guests, empty ashtrays, water lawns, sell wines, do the laundry, smile, answer repetitious questions, clean floors, obey orders and smile.

Oh yes, and the starting pay is bad but the range goes up to 4000€/month.

As we are an equal opportunity employer, being an industrial engineer is not a disqualifier.

You ask for
people who can obey orders - 5/5
smile - 4/5
clean rooms   - 5/5
serve tables  - 4/5
cook  - 2/5 basic cooking ... mostly breakfast and some pastas
know wines  - I don't know wines
stand long hours in scorching sun - 5/5
nitpick about petty amounts - 4/5
do gardening - 4/5
smile - 4/5
drive cars - 5/5
furnish rooms - don't know exactly what you mean with this ... but if you want to let me decorate a room I can do that
clean toilets - 5/5
empty trash-bins - 5/5
greet guests - 5/5
empty ashtrays - 5/5
water lawns - 5/5
sell wines - I could sell them but I don't know all the details ... if the buyer knows what he wants i can sell him wine ... but I don't know what to recommend him
do the laundry - I'm not good at doing laundry ... one time I tried it and made my pants unwearable! But if someone can teach me I can learn!
smile - 4/5
answer repetitious questions - 5/5
clean floors - 5/5
obey orders and smile - 5/5

what I can offer extra ....
I'm a vodka passionate ... mostly for premium vodka
Organize parties for our guests
Offer VIP service to our guests (I've been in the best clubs in the world and I learned what VIP is about)
I can fix computers and stuff .... but I think everyone here knows that so I don't really consider this as a skill

Will come back with other skills if I remember them


P.S. I'm a morning person, I love to get up early!

Okay. Your work starts Thursday, next week. We can pay the taxi from Tallinn! If that is too early, any later day is also possible.

DEPARTURE
Budapest, Liszt Ferenc International (Terminal 2B) - Helsinki, Helsinki Vantaa (Terminal 2)
Wednesday 06 August 2014
AY756 Z 19:15 - 22:35
Economy cabin
Helsinki, Helsinki Vantaa (Terminal 2) - Tallinn, Lennart Meri
Wednesday 06 August 2014
AY2117 Z 23:45 - 00:20 (Thu)
Economy cabin
Total duration: 4h 05min
Basic
RETURN
Tallinn, Lennart Meri - Helsinki, Helsinki Vantaa (Terminal 2)
Tuesday 19 August 2014
AY2116 Z 21:30 - 22:05
Economy cabin
Helsinki, Helsinki Vantaa (Terminal 2) - Budapest, Liszt Ferenc International (Terminal 2B)
Wednesday 20 August 2014
AY753 Z 09:30 - 10:50 (Wed)
Economy cabin
Total duration: 14h 20min
Basic

Just to let everyone know I am serious!

Sounds good. I'll pick you up this thursday at a time that is determined by my ferry schedule, but will not be earlier than 12:30.

Together we rock!

Others: it is still possible to sign up!! See link in my sig: "Malla Summer Retreat".