Yes - but you must recognize that is precisely 50% of the picture.

Others have made different assumptions - taking the [1MB-constrained] market as it exists today, rather than in some projected future.

Raising the block size limit then becomes a human decision to favor some users over others, a human decision to prevent an active and competitive free fee market developing at 1MB, a human decision to keep transaction fees low to incentivize bitcoin adoption, a human decision to value adoption over decentralization.

These statements are not value judgements - not saying you are wrong - these are observations of some rather huge, relevant blind spots in this debate.





On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
It is a trivial code change.  It is not a trivial change to the economics of a $3.2B system.

Hmm - again I'd argue the opposite.

Up until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by the hard block size limit.

If we raise it, Bitcoin will continue to be unconstrained by it. That's the default "continue as we are" position.

If it's not raised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory entirely. Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become popular will suddenly have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will leave. The technical code change would be zero, but the economic change would be significant.



--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/