On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
Wladimir noted that 'The original presented intention of block size
increase was a one-time "scaling" to grant time for more decentralizing
solutions to develop'

Comments?

Consensus is that this process is too painful to go through once a year. I agree.

If you believe we will need to go through this process once a year, we are not talking about a one-time scaling to grant time for more decentralizing solutions. It means you think we should keep scaling. I don't disagree there - as long as we're talking about scaling as availability of bandwidth, storage and processing power increase, there is no reason Bitcoin's blockchain can't grow proportionally.

However, an initial bump 8 MB and the growth rate afterwards seem more like a no-effectively-limit-ever to me.

I fear that the wish of not wanting to deal with - admittedly - a very hard problem, resulted here in throwing away several protections we currently have. And yes, I know you believe 8 MB won't be created immediately. I truly, honestly, do not think so either. But I prefer a system where I don't need to rely on anyone's guesses for the future.

--

Pieter