On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jorge Timón <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
This is a much more reasonable position. I wish this had been starting
point of this discussion instead of "the block size limit must be
increased as soon as possible or bitcoin will fail".

It REALLY doesn't help the debate when you say patently false statements like that.

My first blog post on this issue is here:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent

... and I NEVER say "Bitcoin will fail". I say:

"If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don’t think that is likely– it is more likely people just stop using Bitcoin because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable."

But you seem to consider that a bad thing. Maybe saying that you're claiming that this equals Bitcoin failing is an exaggeration, but you do believe that evolving towards an ecosystem where there is competition for block space is a bad thing, right?

I don't agree that "Not everyone is able to use the block chain for every use case" is the same thing as "People stop using Bitcoin". People are already not using it for every use case.

Here is what my proposed BIP says: "No hard forking change that relaxes the block size limit can be guaranteed to provide enough space for every possible demand - or even any particular demand - unless strong centralization of the mining ecosystem is expected. Because of that, the development of a fee market and the evolution towards an ecosystem that is able to cope with block space competition should be considered healthy."

--

Pieter