On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I don't agree with you at all.
>
> This is a case where if Jeff doesn't understand that issue, he's
> proposing changes that he's not competent enough to understand, and it'd
> save us a lot of review effort if he left that discussion. Equally, Jeff
> is in a position in the dev community where he should be that competent;
> if he actually isn't it does a lot of good for the broader community to
> change that opinion.
>
> I personally *don't* think he's doing that, rather I believe he knows
> full well it's a bad patch and is proposing it because he wants to push
> discussion towards a solution. Often trolling the a audience with bad
> patches is an effective way to motivate people to respond by writing
> better ones; Jeff has told me he often does exactly that.
>
>
mmmm kay.  Let's try to keep it technical, please.

2MB is a limit that has been discussed as a viable next-step, meeting with
the most consensus.

2MB gets beyond the 1MB hard fork issue, while still remaining within a
safety cap that should ensure the system does not go "off the rails" as
some has predicted.

Security, privacy and centralization are not going to disappear at 2MB.

Further, a limited step gains valuable field data for judging whether
further steps are warranted - thus informing the "better block size
solution" development process.

Finally, as stated in the initial PR, it is intended as a viable fallback
should we reach a point of criticality where the user community feels a
block size increase is warranted, yet cannot reach consensus on a fancy,
all-consuming solution be it 20MB, flexcap, BIP 100, BIP 102, etc.

I am open to suggestions for improving BIP 102.  The goal is a minimum
complexity fallback that others have previously agreed was a useful
kick-the-can compromise - a static 2MB cap.