On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:

On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one of the reasons.

What are the other reasons?

> I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource planning and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriously.

When "the network runs out of capacity" (when we hit the limit) do we expect anything to happen apart from minimum market fees rising (above zero)?
Obviously any consequences of fees rising are included in this concern.

It is frustrating to answer questions that we answered months ago, especially when I linked to these in response to your recent "increase advocates say that not increasing the max block size will KILL BITCOIN" false claim:

http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent

https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32

Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become unreliable. Unreliable is bad.

Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're headed without an increase to the max block size.

RE: the recent thread about "better deal with that type of thing now rather than later" : exactly the same argument can be made about changes needed to support a larger block size-- "better to do that now than to do that later." I don't think either of those arguments are very convincing.

--
Gavin Andresen