<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I don't agree with you at all.<br>
<br>
This is a case where if Jeff doesn't understand that issue, he's<br>
proposing changes that he's not competent enough to understand, and it'd<br>
save us a lot of review effort if he left that discussion. Equally, Jeff<br>
is in a position in the dev community where he should be that competent;<br>
if he actually isn't it does a lot of good for the broader community to<br>
change that opinion.<br>
<br>
I personally *don't* think he's doing that, rather I believe he knows<br>
full well it's a bad patch and is proposing it because he wants to push<br>
discussion towards a solution. Often trolling the a audience with bad<br>
patches is an effective way to motivate people to respond by writing<br>
better ones; Jeff has told me he often does exactly that.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>mmmm kay. Let's try to keep it technical, please.</div><div><br></div><div>2MB is a limit that has been discussed as a viable next-step, meeting with the most consensus.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Security, privacy and centralization are not going to disappear at 2MB.</div><div><br></div><div>Further, a limited step gains valuable field data for judging whether further steps are warranted - thus informing the "better block size solution" development process.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br></div></div>