Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ...

[VeritasSapere]

You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify.

As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today.

However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools.

On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs?

That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does.

I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down.

The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess.

This is correct, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever. Since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do instead. GPU's and CPU's will never be able to mine Bitcoin profitably again, even outdated ASIC's are far more efficient. There are currently hundreds of thousands of workers running on the Bitcoin network, much more then mere thousands, so ASIC's do and will indeed always win.

[1713991425]

1713991425

[1713991425]

1713991425

[brg444]

You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify.

As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today.

However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools.

On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs?

That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does.

I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down.

The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess.

This is correct, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever. Since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do instead. GPU's and CPU's will never be able to mine Bitcoin profitably again, even outdated ASIC's are far more efficient. There are currently hundreds of thousands of workers running on the Bitcoin network, much more then mere thousands, so ASIC's do and will indeed always win.

No, this is wrong on several points.

Miners absolutely run full nodes. If you are only hashing and pointing it to a pool you are not a miner.

Blocksize will necessarily increase mining centralization for reasons repeatedly stated which I won't bother explaining again because you have an irritating tendency not to be honest in your debates anyway.

[VeritasSapere]

You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify.

As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today.

However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools.

On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs?

That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does.

I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down.

The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess.

This is correct, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever. Since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do instead. GPU's and CPU's will never be able to mine Bitcoin profitably again, even outdated ASIC's are far more efficient. There are currently hundreds of thousands of workers running on the Bitcoin network, much more then mere thousands, so ASIC's do and will indeed always win.

No, this is wrong on several points.

Miners absolutely run full nodes. If you are only hashing and pointing it to a pool you are not a miner.

Blocksize will necessarily increase mining centralization for reasons repeatedly stated which I won't bother explaining again because you have an irritating tendency not to be honest in your debates anyway.

I am actually a miner myself, and the vast majority of miners most certainly do not run full nodes. I run full nodes at home but not for the purpose of mining. I recently even calculated that it would require a minimum of at least five million dollars to setup a mining operation that would be able to feasibly solo mine, which is what mining with a full node implies. According to your logic only the pool operators are the "true" miners then, I can accept that definition. It does not change the fact however that the vast majority of mining power today is under the control of people that do not rely on their own full nodes for mining and point their hashing power towards pools instead. Therefore it is accurate that increasing the blocksize would not effect the majority of the hashing power whatsoever because they do not run full nodes themselves. Considering the cost of solo mining it would be silly to think that this should be a measure of decentralization, since we have departed from that reality in Bitcoin mining many years ago already. This is why increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever.

[brg444]

You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify.

As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today.

However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools.

On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs?

That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does.

I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down.

The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess.

This is correct, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever. Since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do instead. GPU's and CPU's will never be able to mine Bitcoin profitably again, even outdated ASIC's are far more efficient. There are currently hundreds of thousands of workers running on the Bitcoin network, much more then mere thousands, so ASIC's do and will indeed always win.

No, this is wrong on several points.

Miners absolutely run full nodes. If you are only hashing and pointing it to a pool you are not a miner.

Blocksize will necessarily increase mining centralization for reasons repeatedly stated which I won't bother explaining again because you have an irritating tendency not to be honest in your debates anyway.

I am actually a miner myself, and the vast majority of miners most certainly do not run full nodes. I run full nodes at home but not for the purpose of mining. I recently even calculated that it would require a minimum of at least five million dollars to setup a mining operation that would be able to feasibly solo mine, which is what mining with a full node implies. According to your logic only the pool operators are the "true" miners then, I can accept that definition. It does not change the fact however that the vast majority of mining power today is under the control of people that do not rely on their own full nodes for mining and point their hashing power towards pools instead. Therefore it is accurate that increasing the blocksize would not effect the majority of the hashing power whatsoever because they do not run full nodes themselves. Considering the cost of solo mining it would be silly to think that this should be a measure of decentralization, since we have departed from that reality in Bitcoin mining many years ago already.

Again, if you don't solo mine and validate transactions yourself you are not a miner. Hashing and mining are two different things.

Also solo miners are slowly but surely taking over the network:



So no, you are wrong on all points, again.

[VeritasSapere]

Again, if you don't solo mine and validate transactions yourself you are not a miner. Hashing and mining are two different things.

Also solo miners are slowly but surely taking over the network:

So no, you are wrong on all points, again.

You should really check your facts before posting, solo mining now represents 29% of the network at the time of writing. It would also be trivial for such large operations to host a full node in a data center considering the scale at which their operations are already at, only extremely large industrial operations can feasibly solo mine, surely you do not see solo mining as good for decentralization, pools actually help decentralize Bitcoin mining in this sense. I am running over 20KW of mining equipment from my home. I feel like I am a miner but you are welcome to maintain that I am not a miner just because I choose to pool my hashing power together with other people so that variance does not turn my operation into the equivalent of playing the lottery.

https://blockchain.info/pools

[adamstgBit]

You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify.

As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today.

However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools.

On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs?

That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does.

I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down.

The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess.

This is correct, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever. Since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do instead. GPU's and CPU's will never be able to mine Bitcoin profitably again, even outdated ASIC's are far more efficient. There are currently hundreds of thousands of workers running on the Bitcoin network, much more then mere thousands, so ASIC's do and will indeed always win.

No, this is wrong on several points.

Miners absolutely run full nodes. If you are only hashing and pointing it to a pool you are not a miner.

Blocksize will necessarily increase mining centralization for reasons repeatedly stated which I won't bother explaining again because you have an irritating tendency not to be honest in your debates anyway.

I am actually a miner myself, and the vast majority of miners most certainly do not run full nodes. I run full nodes at home but not for the purpose of mining. I recently even calculated that it would require a minimum of at least five million dollars to setup a mining operation that would be able to feasibly solo mine, which is what mining with a full node implies. According to your logic only the pool operators are the "true" miners then, I can accept that definition. It does not change the fact however that the vast majority of mining power today is under the control of people that do not rely on their own full nodes for mining and point their hashing power towards pools instead. Therefore it is accurate that increasing the blocksize would not effect the majority of the hashing power whatsoever because they do not run full nodes themselves. Considering the cost of solo mining it would be silly to think that this should be a measure of decentralization, since we have departed from that reality in Bitcoin mining many years ago already.

Again, if you don't solo mine and validate transactions yourself you are not a miner. Hashing and mining are two different things.

Also solo miners are slowly but surely taking over the network:



So no, you are wrong on all points, again.

where are you getting this data

looking https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC the first 90% of hashing power seems to be coming from pools

and VeritasSapere  has a really good point

1 mavise solo miner isnt nearly as good as 1000 pooled miners, as far as mining decentralization gose

i mean come on, you make up the definition of a miner to exclude what 90% of the hashing power is currently( workers free to join whatever pool they choose )

furthermore, miners do not pool together because running a full node is costly, FFS poeple run full nodes for fun!

so, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever.

deal with it.

[adamstgBit]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21967/notable-bitcoin-core-contributors-now-open-increasing-block-size-limit-2-4mb/

[brg444]

You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify.

As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today.

However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools.

On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs?

That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does.

I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down.

The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess.

This is correct, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever. Since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do instead. GPU's and CPU's will never be able to mine Bitcoin profitably again, even outdated ASIC's are far more efficient. There are currently hundreds of thousands of workers running on the Bitcoin network, much more then mere thousands, so ASIC's do and will indeed always win.

No, this is wrong on several points.

Miners absolutely run full nodes. If you are only hashing and pointing it to a pool you are not a miner.

Blocksize will necessarily increase mining centralization for reasons repeatedly stated which I won't bother explaining again because you have an irritating tendency not to be honest in your debates anyway.

I am actually a miner myself, and the vast majority of miners most certainly do not run full nodes. I run full nodes at home but not for the purpose of mining. I recently even calculated that it would require a minimum of at least five million dollars to setup a mining operation that would be able to feasibly solo mine, which is what mining with a full node implies. According to your logic only the pool operators are the "true" miners then, I can accept that definition. It does not change the fact however that the vast majority of mining power today is under the control of people that do not rely on their own full nodes for mining and point their hashing power towards pools instead. Therefore it is accurate that increasing the blocksize would not effect the majority of the hashing power whatsoever because they do not run full nodes themselves. Considering the cost of solo mining it would be silly to think that this should be a measure of decentralization, since we have departed from that reality in Bitcoin mining many years ago already.

Again, if you don't solo mine and validate transactions yourself you are not a miner. Hashing and mining are two different things.

Also solo miners are slowly but surely taking over the network:



So no, you are wrong on all points, again.

where are you getting this data

looking https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC the first 90% of hashing power seems to be coming from pools

and VeritasSapere  has a really good point

1 mavise solo miner isnt nearly as good as 1000 pooled miners, as far as mining decentralization gose

i mean come on, you make up the definition of a miner to exclude what 90% of the hashing power is currently( workers free to join whatever pool they choose )

furthermore, miners do not pool together because running a full node is costly, FFS poeple run full nodes for fun!

so, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever.

deal with it.

Neither Bitfury or KnC are a pool.

I'm getting my data from Organ of Corti's blog (http://organofcorti.blogspot.ca/)

Larger blocks favor large-industrialized solo miners. Their share of the market will become increasingly important in the future.

So, no, both of you are wrong, again, blocksize increases precipitates mining centralization.

[VeritasSapere]

Neither Bitfury or KnC are a pool.

I'm getting my data from Organ of Corti's blog (http://organofcorti.blogspot.ca/)

Larger blocks favor large-industrialized solo miners. Their share of the market will become increasingly important in the future.

So, no, both of you are wrong, again, blocksize increases precipitates mining centralization.

They are pools but they can be considered Solo operations because they run their own full node. Larger blocks do not favor large-industrialized solo miners, just repeating this does not make it true.

One correction adamstgBit is that miners do not run their own full node because the variance of solo mining is to high. Not because it is to expensive to run a full node, I do absolutely agree with the rest of your points though.

[brg444]

Neither Bitfury or KnC are a pool.

I'm getting my data from Organ of Corti's blog (http://organofcorti.blogspot.ca/)

Larger blocks favor large-industrialized solo miners. Their share of the market will become increasingly important in the future.

So, no, both of you are wrong, again, blocksize increases precipitates mining centralization.

They are pools but they can be considered Solo operations because they run their own full node. Larger blocks do not favor large-industrialized solo miners, just repeating this does not make it true.

One correction adamstgBit is that miners do not run their own full node because the variance of solo mining is to high. Not because it is to expensive, I do absolutely agree with the rest of your points though.

 

KnC and Bitfury are not pools.

Larger blocks does favor more connected large miners who can profit from larger blocks by doing solo mining attacks on smaller or less connected miners.

https://bitcoindebates.miraheze.org/wiki/Higher_block_propagation_latency_favors_large_miners

[VeritasSapere]

Neither Bitfury or KnC are a pool.

I'm getting my data from Organ of Corti's blog (http://organofcorti.blogspot.ca/)

Larger blocks favor large-industrialized solo miners. Their share of the market will become increasingly important in the future.

So, no, both of you are wrong, again, blocksize increases precipitates mining centralization.

They are pools but they can be considered Solo operations because they run their own full node. Larger blocks do not favor large-industrialized solo miners, just repeating this does not make it true.

One correction adamstgBit is that miners do not run their own full node because the variance of solo mining is to high. Not because it is to expensive, I do absolutely agree with the rest of your points though.

KnC and Bitfury are not pools.

Larger blocks does favor more connected large miners who can profit from larger blocks by doing solo mining attacks on smaller or less connected miners.

I agree with you that KnC and Bitfury are solo mining operations, however it still stands that only 29% of the hashing power is carried out by solo mining operations, for whom running full nodes even with much larger blocks would be trivial.

If you are referring to what is known as the selfish miner attack, the selfish miner attack has been shown to actually benefit smaller pools more and thereby incentivize the creation of smaller pools.

[brg444]

Neither Bitfury or KnC are a pool.

I'm getting my data from Organ of Corti's blog (http://organofcorti.blogspot.ca/)

Larger blocks favor large-industrialized solo miners. Their share of the market will become increasingly important in the future.

So, no, both of you are wrong, again, blocksize increases precipitates mining centralization.

They are pools but they can be considered Solo operations because they run their own full node. Larger blocks do not favor large-industrialized solo miners, just repeating this does not make it true.

One correction adamstgBit is that miners do not run their own full node because the variance of solo mining is to high. Not because it is to expensive, I do absolutely agree with the rest of your points though.

KnC and Bitfury are not pools.

Larger blocks does favor more connected large miners who can profit from larger blocks by doing solo mining attacks on smaller or less connected miners.

I agree with you that KnC and Bitfury are solo mining operations, however it still stands that only 29% of the hashing power is carried out by solo mining operations, for whom running full nodes even with much larger blocks would be trivial.

If you are referring to what is known as the selfish miner attack, the selfish miner attack has been shown to actually benefit smaller pools more and thereby incentivize the creation of smaller pools.

Can you not see the trend I showed you a couple posts ago?

To be fair I'm not so much concerned with mining centralization either but I think it is wrong to presume larger blocks does not risk making it worst.

[LiteCoinGuy]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21967/notable-bitcoin-core-contributors-now-open-increasing-block-size-limit-2-4mb/

2MB? please slow down! 1,1 MB first and then more testing...  

[Quantus]

I am a 1MB supporter.



This thread is a echo chamber with few new ideas.
We need only two things.
For the full nodes we need a adjustable mempool so nodes can automatically adjust what transactions get stored and propagated and those that get dropped.
For the clients we need a way to predict the minimal fee needed to get added to the blockchain within a set frame of time. 1 hour to 10 hours to 24 hours; based off the size of the mem pool 'backlog' and the average fees of those transactions.


  1MBTC  FOREVER!

[Lauda]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21967/notable-bitcoin-core-contributors-now-open-increasing-block-size-limit-2-4mb/

2MB? please slow down! 1,1 MB first and then more testing...  

Less sarcasm please. We have to start somewhere. However, I would prefer a dynamic approach rather than a static one. With a static growth pattern we can never be sure if the block size increase is going to be too large or too small. A proper dynamic scaling system would be the "ultimate" compromise. I'm still not sure why BIP105 and 106 are not gaining more attention?
I'm actually surprised why many (think that they are smarter than the people that are actually working in their fields? There are way too many anonymous people voicing their random opinions that can be easily influenced. I'd rather see people with a technical background discuss (e.g. the workshop).

I am a 1MB supporter.

I would advise you to educate yourself further and change your stance towards the subject. Even though the increase might not be necessary right now, sticking to 1MB forever would be very bad.

[adamstgBit]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21967/notable-bitcoin-core-contributors-now-open-increasing-block-size-limit-2-4mb/

2MB? please slow down! 1,1 MB first and then more testing...  

not sure if your being sarcastic, but i'll run with it.

That's my feeling as well, why have these sudden doubling of the limit? and at some fixed schedule for each massive jump. why not simply increase it slowly like 0.1MB a month, or better yet dynamically adjust it according to demand, up to a hard limit ( to prevent node centralization )

[hdbuck]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21967/notable-bitcoin-core-contributors-now-open-increasing-block-size-limit-2-4mb/

2MB? please slow down! 1,1 MB first and then more testing... 

not sure if your being sarcastic, but i'll run with it.

That's my feeling as well, why have these sudden doubling of the limit? and at some fixed schedule for each massive jump. why not simply increase it slowly like 0.1MB a month, or better yet dynamically adjust it according to demand, up to a hard limit ( to prevent node centralization )

because.

[knight22]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21967/notable-bitcoin-core-contributors-now-open-increasing-block-size-limit-2-4mb/

2MB? please slow down! 1,1 MB first and then more testing...  

not sure if your being sarcastic, but i'll run with it.

That's my feeling as well, why have these sudden doubling of the limit? and at some fixed schedule for each massive jump. why not simply increase it slowly like 0.1MB a month, or better yet dynamically adjust it according to demand, up to a hard limit ( to prevent node centralization )

You know that BIP101 does not double in a sudden jump but linearly over time between doubling? (except for the first 8mb jump)

[acquafredda]

Don't we all agree that the only thing that matters here is that this protocol will work in any condition (i.e. we a billion transactions a day, or the value of one BTC is 10213$ etc.)?

My question is very simple: is there a way to have this without becoming like politicians?

Does the 1 MB limit work in any given condition? No.
Dose a dynamic increase work? let's try it on the testnet.

My only concern, as a BTC user is that this system works.

Like knowing that 99,99% when I go to buy something with my credit card it will be accepted.


This is what we need, a working protocol: right now the 1MB limit works: but what of tomorrow?
The decision for tomorrow must be taken today.

This is as I see it.

 

[hdbuck]

Don't we all agree that the only thing that matters here is that this protocol will work in any condition (i.e. we a billion transactions a day, or the value of one BTC is 10213$ etc.)?

fallacy n°1: "billion transactions a day" is not bound to "value of one BTC is 10213$"

My question is very simple: is there a way to have this without becoming like politicians?

fallacy n°2: ad hom?!

Does the 1 MB limit work in any given condition? No.

fallacy n°3: what is "any given condition"? will the 1MB work if there would be "mass adoption" ie 1BILLION TRANSACTIONS-WOWOZ?  well no... it would still work, like, with fees y' know..

Dose a dynamic increase work? let's try it on the testnet.

ok. try whatever you want on testnet. lots of stuff tested without notice anyway.

My only concern, as a BTC user is that this system works.

me too!

Like knowing that 99,99% when I go to buy something with my credit card it will be accepted.

fallacy n°4: bitcoin is not a credit card..

This is what we need, a working protocol: right now the 1MB limit works: but what of tomorrow?

fallacy n°5: http://www.indra.com/cgi-bin/spikes-8-ball

The decision for tomorrow must be taken today.

LOL NO and then you dont want it to be polittical? this is low life politics: spreading the fud and get the votes nao, for teh future!! u mad man

This is as I see it.
 

this is how retards sees it..



point is bitcoin works now with 1MB, whislt we are not sure it would with some twitched ph0rk "in the future"

in the end, bitcoin is kinda the ultimate trust index.
its value thrives from its security
which primes even over capacity (for which the block size is irrelevant anyway)