Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[Stephen Gornick]

As soon as I hear about A2, or maybe A3, I'll drop my B1 block because it's no longer on the longest chain.  From my point of view it's exactly like having a block orphaned for any other reason.

What if "Client B" were to reject any block that was 1MB or below, and only created blocks larger than 1MB (starting with some future block number).  Then regardless of "Client A"'s hashing power, those blocks will not be valid as far as Client B is concerned.

Sure the chains will quickly diverge (as there will be UTXOs with taint from new post-fork coins in Client A that will be rejected on Client B, and coins tainted in Client B are rejected by Client A).  If Client B only gets a really small amount of hashing capacity it won't be seen as being secure enough to persuade users to hop over to Client B.  But with a 20MB max blocksize, just 2% of the hashing capacity is still enough to absorb existing daily Bitcoin transaction load.  So does having just 2% mean this Client B dies, ... or does it just mean that we have an altcoin that was launched with initial distribution going to every person (or wallet) holding Bitcoin at the point the fork started?

[RoadStress]

To me, and I come from a completely different paradigm, which is the obvious arising of a universal poker coin which cannot be said to be unrelated. The ideal poker markets that are eventually created by having a near instant and near costless means of exchange creates a cradle for a solution basically that is "quixcoin" (I "think" Szabo mentioned it recently and is Sergio L's coin). I am far from technical, but to me this is the birth of the actual implementation of "mental poker".  But I instantly get confronted with the question or assertion about why one would not just use bitcoin. This is of course in relation to many skilled type games, and the markets that support them.  Thats a mutibillion dollar industry that could snap over the bitcoin nearly over night which is contingent on bitcoin having some form or amount of limitations (transition from fiat to bitcoin, but ultimately to separate value from the game with separate "coins" protocols, or networks, however we view it all) . This is an incredibly interesting conversation.  I am almost sad I will not be able to share the contents and meaning with many people I know irl. Someone accuses someone of being a thief, but I think rather we must all think like thieves in order to create the ultra secure platform.

Do you know anything else besides "ideal money" and "poker"?

[redsn0w]

So we get to 140 tps...
What happens if we reach that in say 5 years... Another hard fork?
I just don't think changing it like this is a smart way of dealing with the issue, why not a dynamic size that scales with the network as some other coins do...?

Now I think the hardfork isn't necessary (I've read a lot of article,topics). The 1 MB blocksize is necessary to keep the coin decentralized (more & more people save the blockchain on their PC) and bitcoin will stay a valid an great alternative to the current economy system in the next few years. For example if someone want to send money to his relatives in another country/nation, in this case bitcoin can help (because the fees are lower than moneygram,western union, bank transfer, etc...) and the 7 tps  aren't a real problem.

maybe other people want to do other people with btc than transaction money to another country?
why dont you let them use it just as a currency - which it is designed for btw.

Yes of course, but bitcoin is not only a currency. It is an alternative "way" for send a large quantity of money and pay lower fee, and after a currency (like € , $ , etc....) .

[RoadStress]

Yes of course, but bitcoin is not only a currency. It is an alternative "way" for send a large quantity of money and pay lower fee, and after a currency (like € , $ , etc....) .

People want to have it their way. For them Bitcoin is only a currency and nothing else which is wrong wrong wrong!

[RoadStress]

After reading more, I feel concerned for network security if the blocks grow so much. It's clear it would be easily detected by opperators, and they would have incentive to cut it if they support a big bandwith usage growth from to much customers.

Bitcoin can't scale much, that's it.

Let's scale it a little bit when we will have a more clear consencus and everybody would be ok to increase block size at 2 or 5 mb.

Our votes don't matter, but if I could, I would have edited my yes for a no

At that time, I tought it was 20mb, but 20 doubled every two years is too much risky

So you are sure that there will be no technical trick to solve this issue. You are 100% sure about this. Of course you also know the lottery numbers and what the exchange rate will be in a couple of years.

[NewLiberty]

I suspect you are not standing atop the great pyramid with me, which I encourage because the perspective is truly enlightening:

Launch the interactive, choose “khufu” and then “view from top. Stand on the pyramids: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/explore-ancient-egypt.html

You understand a lot of things.
Do you understand that it may not be necessary to guess?  
Don't you think it would be better to measure than to guess?

We have something that will be there in the future telling us how big blocks can safely be, the block chain itself can tell us.  
We do this already with difficulty, which is adjusted by how frequently acceptable hashes are calculated.

If we are going from a fixed limit, to a flexible one, let us at least attempt to do it so that we are no longer guessing.

We are determining a certain definition of what is to become a very special measuring device, because it is one born of consensus. Because of this it is in fact necessary that there is both some guess and some form of communal error vs what would be ideal (because one cannot tell the future, and mankind to this point is perceptually in conflict).

THAT is the true problem the architect realizes. Now you can convince the elite of this, but the issue is rather the masses wish bitcoin to be many things that alas it cannot be.  This is upsetting to the religious masses but not the top "scientists" or rather the "priests" and "advisors".

So what we are seeing is rather that we must make a consensus on a stagnant dead fixed decision, and allow what grows around it to be that which is "adjustable".  Unless there can be no consensus towards that direction, and then it seems everyone loses. (It shouldn't be seen as irrelevant that the greek/euro decision is to be discussed and announced soon and might dissolve the euro eventually).

Not so special as you imagine.
All measuring is born of consensus.

When that fails, space shuttles fall out of the sky because a consensus between English units and Metric units was not made.

--
We are contemplating moving from a static limit to a dynamic one.  This should be done thoughtfully rather than arbitrarily.
We aren't hitting the 1MB limit now, so a 2MB limit would probably be just fine and less risk.  The problem there is that this debate happens whenever things like this are discussed....
So, a dynamic limit is proposed, to end the repeating discussions...  EXCEPT IT DOESN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS JUST AS MUCH AN ARBITRARY GUESS ABOUT THE FUTURE. 

If there were a way to to end the discussions, and have a limit that adjusts so that it is never too big or too small we would be done here.

This problem has been struggled with since version 0.3 or so.

[RoadStress]

I'm sure that having a huge network flow is a very big risk for the network, I'm sure that less nodes, with big infrastructures is more risky.
I'm sure that 20mb x 1.4 x year is huge and that it's impossible that the risks have been studied carrefully and tought acceptable.
I'm sure that some countries can't afford so much bandwith
I'm sure that it will be harder to maintain, easier to cause networks splits...
I'm also sure than when blocks will be full, a quick fork with consensus (that we can plan right now) will be implemented quicly.
So, I will stick my coins offline for some time, and be sure to not follow the fork, just to be sure.

(for sure there will be technical tricks, and do you think this fork will go smouth executed right now ?)

So as I said. You are sure of some stuff and you think that there will be no technical solutions for all the above. Reality is different.

As for the "a huge network flow is a very big risk for the network"...Well I'm speechless! What are your expectations from the Bitcoin network other than a huge network flow? You are one of those people that only see Bitcoin as a currency and are only interested in the exchange rate?

[hdbuck]

I'm sure that having a huge network flow is a very big risk for the network, I'm sure that less nodes, with big infrastructures is more risky.
I'm sure that 20mb x 1.4 x year is huge and that it's impossible that the risks have been studied carrefully and tought acceptable.
I'm sure that some countries can't afford so much bandwith
I'm sure that it will be harder to maintain, easier to cause networks splits...
I'm also sure than when blocks will be full, a quick fork with consensus (that we can plan right now) will be implemented quicly.
So, I will stick my coins offline for some time, and be sure to not follow the fork, just to be sure.

(for sure there will be technical tricks, and do you think this fork will go smouth executed right now ?)

So as I said. You are sure of some stuff and you think that there will be no technical solutions for all the above. Reality is different.

As for the "a huge network flow is a very big risk for the network"...Well I'm speechless! What are your expectations from the Bitcoin network other than a huge network flow? You are one of those people that only see Bitcoin as a currency and are only interested in the exchange rate?

i am sure not every one agrees with you either ^^

[NewLiberty]

Apparently these folks are thinking that we have a few years to worry about this still...

http://www.coindesk.com/juniper-research-bitcoin-transactions-double-2017/

We aren't yet at half the limit on average, so doubling by 2017, we still won't be there.

So, how about that BIP to get a block size metric into the block chain, where it will always be able to tell us what a good block size will be?  It would be nice to not have to talk about this again.

[R2D221]

What are today transaction per second for gold market ? maybe we should target this.

Why?

[hdbuck]

Apparently these folks are thinking that we have a few years to worry about this still...

http://www.coindesk.com/juniper-research-bitcoin-transactions-double-2017/

We aren't yet at half the limit on average, so doubling by 2017, we still won't be there.

So, how about that BIP to get a block size metric into the block chain, where it will always be able to tell us what a good block size will be?  It would be nice to not have to talk about this again.

“When you look at the actual number of wallets and people who regularly make transactions, rather than just store half a bitcoin, you’re talking about a couple million max,” he added.

He also sought to debunk the idea that merchant adoption would lead to an increase in consumer use, adding: “It doesn’t necessarily follow that the more retailers that deploy it, the more people will use it.”

reality

[RoadStress]

Honestly, I was thinking to use the Bitcoin network for a project, and concluded after some thinking that the numbers of transactions I needed would be to high for me to believe in the network to take my transactions (kind of contracts)

So I would have to rely on my network.

Bitcoin is for reference, not to be used to store to much data on blockchain, the smalest it will stay, the more resilient it will stay

What are today transaction per second for gold market ? maybe we should target this.

And continue to work on side chains or other merged solution, including using proofs from bitcoin network, without writing into it

So you wanted to start a project, but you cancelled it because the network couldn't handle the high number of transactions? Imagine that there are a lot of people that would want to start various projects or more important various services, but can't because the network doesn't allow them a high transaction number. That's why we need 20MB blocks. Internet got popular and useful for everyone when we were able to access different services on it. It will be the same with Bitcoin. We just need to allow stuff to happen!

Why do you compare Bitcoin with gold? What's the logic behind that? Did Satoshi mentioned anything about Bitcoin and gold? I'm not aware of that reference. That's again your view about Bitcoin which is a personal and distorted view of Bitcoin. Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders because you or anyone else wants it that way!

Yes sidechains will help, but we don't know how much space in a block will the Sidechain need so until we know that it's useless to make assumptions about them.

[NewLiberty]

Honestly, I was thinking to use the Bitcoin network for a project, and concluded after some thinking that the numbers of transactions I needed would be to high for me to believe in the network to take my transactions (kind of contracts)

So I would have to rely on my network.

Bitcoin is for reference, not to be used to store to much data on blockchain, the smalest it will stay, the more resilient it will stay

What are today transaction per second for gold market ? maybe we should target this.

And continue to work on side chains or other merged solution, including using proofs from bitcoin network, without writing into it

So you wanted to start a project, but you cancelled it because the network couldn't handle the high number of transactions? Imagine that there are a lot of people that would want to start various projects or more important various services, but can't because the network doesn't allow them a high transaction number. That's why we need 20MB blocks. Internet got popular and useful for everyone when we were able to access different services on it. It will be the same with Bitcoin. We just need to allow stuff to happen!

Why do you compare Bitcoin with gold? What's the logic behind that? Did Satoshi mentioned anything about Bitcoin and gold? I'm not aware of that reference. That's again your view about Bitcoin which is a personal and distorted view of Bitcoin. Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders because you or anyone else wants it that way!

Yes sidechains will help, but we don't know how much space in a block will the Sidechain need so until we know that it's useless to make assumptions about them.

Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain?
The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service.

Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others?

[RoadStress]

So you wanted to start a project, but you cancelled it because the network couldn't handle the high number of transactions? Imagine that there are a lot of people that would want to start various projects or more important various services, but can't because the network doesn't allow them a high transaction number. That's why we need 20MB blocks. Internet got popular and useful for everyone when we were able to access different services on it. It will be the same with Bitcoin. We just need to allow stuff to happen!

Why do you compare Bitcoin with gold? What's the logic behind that? Did Satoshi mentioned anything about Bitcoin and gold? I'm not aware of that reference. That's again your view about Bitcoin which is a personal and distorted view of Bitcoin. Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders because you or anyone else wants it that way!

Yes sidechains will help, but we don't know how much space in a block will the Sidechain need so until we know that it's useless to make assumptions about them.

Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain?
The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service.

Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others?

Do you lack reading reading comprehension? I have highlighted one important part from my quote. Let me repeat it because you obviously didn't see it: Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders

I never stated that I want to start projects and that you need me. I said that there are a lot of people that would like to start various services and projects. Please highlight the part where I said that I want to start anything.

[redsn0w]

So you wanted to start a project, but you cancelled it because the network couldn't handle the high number of transactions? Imagine that there are a lot of people that would want to start various projects or more important various services, but can't because the network doesn't allow them a high transaction number. That's why we need 20MB blocks. Internet got popular and useful for everyone when we were able to access different services on it. It will be the same with Bitcoin. We just need to allow stuff to happen!

Why do you compare Bitcoin with gold? What's the logic behind that? Did Satoshi mentioned anything about Bitcoin and gold? I'm not aware of that reference. That's again your view about Bitcoin which is a personal and distorted view of Bitcoin. Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders because you or anyone else wants it that way!

Yes sidechains will help, but we don't know how much space in a block will the Sidechain need so until we know that it's useless to make assumptions about them.

Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain?
The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service.

Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others?

Do you lack reading reading comprehension? I have highlighted one important part from my quote. Let me repeat it because you obviously didn't see it: Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders

I never stated that I want to start projects and that you need me. I said that there are a lot of people that would like to start various services and projects. Please highlight the part where I said that I want to start anything.

That's an interesting phrase and concept, we will see in the next 4-5 years if it will stay "free, decentralized & neutral" or not (I certainly hope so).

[NewLiberty]

So you wanted to start a project, but you cancelled it because the network couldn't handle the high number of transactions? Imagine that there are a lot of people that would want to start various projects or more important various services, but can't because the network doesn't allow them a high transaction number. That's why we need 20MB blocks. Internet got popular and useful for everyone when we were able to access different services on it. It will be the same with Bitcoin. We just need to allow stuff to happen!

Why do you compare Bitcoin with gold? What's the logic behind that? Did Satoshi mentioned anything about Bitcoin and gold? I'm not aware of that reference. That's again your view about Bitcoin which is a personal and distorted view of Bitcoin. Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders because you or anyone else wants it that way!

Yes sidechains will help, but we don't know how much space in a block will the Sidechain need so until we know that it's useless to make assumptions about them.

Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain?
The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service.

Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others?

Do you lack reading reading comprehension? I have highlighted one important part from my quote. Let me repeat it because you obviously didn't see it: Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders

I never stated that I want to start projects and that you need me. I said that there are a lot of people that would like to start various services and projects. Please highlight the part where I said that I want to start anything.

Sure.  Here you go.    ^^

"We just need to allow stuff to happen."

Why do "we" *need* this?  
Why do *you* think you speak for others?  
What is this "stuff" you are interested in inflicting on people, and why do we "need" to allow it?

[RoadStress]

Sure.  Here you go.    ^^

"We just need to allow stuff to happen."

Why do "we" *need* this?  
Why do *you* think you speak for others?  
What is this "stuff" you are interested in inflicting on people, and why do we "need" to allow it?

So from "Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain?" and "Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others?" you switched to "Why do "we" *need* this?". Ok..that makes a lot of sense...

Now to answer to your issue:

Why do "we" *need* this?  

Because if we have a closed network that only allows the highest bidder to use it, then it will remain a closed network. Satoshi didn't started Bitcoin to be a closed network. If *you* want a closed network based on the highest bids then yes go ahead and "The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service".

Why do *you* think you speak for others?  

I speak for myself and from the looks of it there are a lot of people that think the same. Since this is a consensus network then all the users need to agree to the best terms that allow the network to flourish. When I say "we" I'm referring to all the network users if we want a consensus network to still be alive in 10 years.

What is this "stuff" you are interested in inflicting on people, and why do we "need" to allow it?

I said it in the past, but you obviously don't pay attention to posts. Bitcoin is Internet of money. Internet flourished after there were a lot of services running on top of it. Look at the Internet 20 years ago and look at the Internet today. What has changed? Well at first people didn't know what to do with the Internet, but today they have figured it out and there are TONS of services/projects running on top of it (Facebook, Google, Websites, E-mail etc) and people that do all kinds of stuff (porn, chat, various types of websites, darkmarkets etc). You and I can do whatever the hell we want on Internet and nobody is making you auction your space on the Internet. Why shouldn't be the same with Bitcoin?

20 years ago downloading the equivalent of a HD movie in a couple of minutes was just a fantasy, but look where we are today! I think that the same can be done with Bitcoin. What today seems an impossible technological challenge, maybe tomorrow will be reality.

[NewLiberty]

Sure.  Here you go.    ^^

"We just need to allow stuff to happen."

Why do "we" *need* this?  
Why do *you* think you speak for others?  
What is this "stuff" you are interested in inflicting on people, and why do we "need" to allow it?

So from "Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain?" and "Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others?" you switched to "Why do "we" *need* this?". Ok..that makes a lot of sense...

Now to answer to your issue:

Why do "we" *need* this?  

Because if we have a closed network that only allows the highest bidder to use it, then it will remain a closed network. Satoshi didn't started Bitcoin to be a closed network. If *you* want a closed network based on the highest bids then yes go ahead and "The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service".

Why do *you* think you speak for others?  

I speak for myself and from the looks of it there are a lot of people that think the same. Since this is a consensus network then all the users need to agree to the best terms that allow the network to flourish. When I say "we" I'm referring to all the network users if we want a consensus network to still be alive in 10 years.

What is this "stuff" you are interested in inflicting on people, and why do we "need" to allow it?

I said it in the past, but you obviously don't pay attention to posts. Bitcoin is Internet of money. Internet flourished after there were a lot of services running on top of it. Look at the Internet 20 years ago and look at the Internet today. What has changed? Well at first people didn't know what to do with the Internet, but today they have figured it out and there are TONS of services/projects running on top of it (Facebook, Google, Websites, E-mail etc) and people that do all kinds of stuff (porn, chat, various types of websites, darkmarkets etc). You and I can do whatever the hell we want on Internet and nobody is making you auction your space on the Internet. Why shouldn't be the same with Bitcoin?

20 years ago downloading the equivalent of a HD movie in a couple of minutes was just a fantasy, but look where we are today! I think that the same can be done with Bitcoin. What today seems an impossible technological challenge, maybe tomorrow will be reality.

You are using rhetoric debate tricks, so I will point out a few of those.
1) Please do not speak for Satoshi.
2) Please do not speak for others.
3) I've written a lot of things in the past that you do not pay attention to also, don't pretend that I should have to read everything you have ever written to ask a few simple questions.

We agree on most things, the internet has changed, Bitcoin has changed, movie compression has changed.  All of that is orthogonal to this particular change, and as to how it ought to change.  There we disagree. 

I also think that the block size will increase, and I look forward to it.  I do think it ought to be done with care and intelligence.  I do not think we should guess about it.  I do not think new arbitrary limits should be created by adding an exponential dimension, even if they are "better" than the current ones, without also taking the time we have to do it right.  I do not think "we need to allow stuff to happen".

IF we break bitcoin for some purposes in order to fix it for other purposes, it is important to be very honest about that.   To some folks this is the "screw-TOR-lets-mass-adopt" hard fork.  We aren't anywhere close to mass adoption today, but a larger block size removes an impediment to getting there.  Is it worth making it impossible to mine over TOR?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Some may exit.  There are less that use TOR than those that don't, so if we are majority magnets, we drop TOR.  I do not favor a rule by the majority.

It also allows for increased network cost or decreases centralization:
Bitcoin Network Cost = Data Size * Decentralization

So these are two attack threat vectors opened up by your "We just need to allow stuff to happen." mentality.

Bitcoin is what it is, not because of what it allows, but because of what it does NOT allow.

I do not favor a rule by the majority.  You value 'consensus' but I do not think you really know what that means, it does not mean the majority rules over the minority.  It means agreement.

[traincarswreck]

Why do you compare Bitcoin with gold? What's the logic behind that? Did Satoshi mentioned anything about Bitcoin and gold? I'm not aware of that reference.

John Nash did though, and extensively.  And here is the thing, not only is he a real person where as Satoshi is clearly jesus, but Dr. Nash knows waaaaayyyyy more about money than Sataoshi (and possibly Szabo and Satoshi combined).  And so I should think that we should at least CONSULT his vast works on the topic of both the history and present circumstances of money, but also of money in relation to creating a globalized standard for it, that will ultimately accelerate us towards "ideality".

Here are some helpful thoughts (I hope we read them and don't just ignore Nash because he's 80+):

My opinion is that if it were too easy to set up a form of “global money” that the version achieved might have characteristics of inferiority which would make it, compar-atively, more like a relatively inferior national currency than like any of the more praiseworthy national or imperial currencies known to historical records.

But there is a good prospect for avoiding the estab-lishment of another, possibly deceptive, currency of infer-ior quality. Here I think of the possibility that a good sort of international currency might EVOLVE before the time when an official establishment might occur.

In a large state like one of the "great democracies" it is reasonable to say that the people should be able, in principle, to decide on the form of a money (like a "public utility") that they should be served by, even though most of the actual volume of the use of the money would be out of the hands of the great majority of the people. But most typically the people would expect to be served by their elected representatives and not to make most of the relevant decisions in a direct fashion.
  
If it becomes a matter of strong and definite prefer-ences that the money used should have definite character-istics of quality then, in principle, the people can demand that. For example formerly there was the drachma and now there is, in Greece, the euro instead of that. And the people seem to be pleased with the change.

So the quality of the medium or media of exchange that is/are used can be improved, if the improvement is really desired. Here we speak of quality in the sense of Gresham or like a bond rating agency.

But the famous classical "Gresham’s Law" also reveals the intrinsic difficulty. Thus "good money" will not naturally supplant and replace "bad money" by a simple Darwinian superiority of competitive species. Rather than that, it must be that the good things are established by the voluntary choice of human agencies. And these resp-onsible agencies, being naturally of the domain of polit-ically derived authorities, would need to make appropriate efforts to achieve such a goal and to pay the costs that are entailed before their societies can benefit. And the benefits would come from the improvement in the quality of this public utility (money) which serves to facilitate the game-theoretic function of "the transfer of utility".

An example of an efficiently working global reform (at least in relation to electronic manufactures) is the metric system, with its central Bureau located near Paris. And this is an example of a system of yardsticks where inflation is currently NOT in fashion!

The last part is a joke (cause he always laughs at the end of the lecture), do we get it?

Are we ready to do this?  Seems like the world has hiccuped in relation to the USD/Gold/Bond de facto standard...seems like its time and we can get ahead of the Euro crisis announcement on monday...let's do it...let people vote with their monies!

I do not favor a rule by the majority.  You value 'consensus' but I do not think you really know what that means, it does not mean the majority rules over the minority.  It means agreement.

I don't mean to pull you out of context but you also mentioned earlier that the consensus need not be 100%!

[RoadStress]

You are using rhetoric debate tricks, so I will point out a few of those.
1) Please do not speak for Satoshi.
2) Please do not speak for others.
3) I've written a lot of things in the past that you do not pay attention to also, don't pretend that I should have to read everything you have ever written to ask a few simple questions.

We agree on most things, the internet has changed, Bitcoin has changed, movie compression has changed.  All of that is orthogonal to this particular change, and as to how it ought to change.  There we disagree.  

Fine. I will not speak for Satoshi and I will only speak for me as long as you do the same.

I also think that the block size will increase, and I look forward to it.  I do think it ought to be done with care and intelligence.  I do not think we should guess about it.  I do not think new arbitrary limits should be created by adding an exponential dimension, even if they are "better" than the current ones, without also taking the time we have to do it right.  I do not think "we need to allow stuff to happen".

If you call http://gavintech.blogspot.ro/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html guessing then I guess we are done discussing stuff.

IF we break bitcoin for some purposes in order to fix it for other purposes, it is important to be very honest about that.   To some folks this is the "screw-TOR-lets-mass-adopt" hard fork.  We aren't anywhere close to mass adoption today, but a larger block size removes an impediment to getting there.  Is it worth making it impossible to mine over TOR?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Some may exit.  There are less that use TOR than those that don't, so if we are majority magnets, we drop TOR.  I do not favor a rule by the majority.

I will only speak for me as long as you do the same so I will ignore this "we" comment.

It also allows for increased network cost or decreases centralization:
Bitcoin Network Cost = Data Size * Decentralization

How much mining have you done or are you doing right now to speak about network costs?

So these are two attack threat vectors opened up by your "We just need to allow stuff to happen." mentality.

Bitcoin is what it is, not because of what it allows, but because of what it does NOT allow.

I do not favor a rule by the majority.  You value 'consensus' but I do not think you really know what that means, it does not mean the majority rules over the minority.  It means agreement.

But before this 1MB limit we had no limit. Why should I agree that this is the way it should be instead of the other way?

Here we disagree. You view Bitcoin as something that is supposed to limit. I don't. There can't be a middle way.