We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.
1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.
The question is whether or not
we have a choice. My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning. The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens.
Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.Oh, that's the third "key"!
The third "key" is the understanding that you have the first "
two"!
It's the reason most of the people who understand Bitcoin are into it. The understanding of it's core value proposition is the greatest attractor here. That's by the way where the "economic pressure" comes from in the first place.
Do
we have a choice?
Everyone of us personally?
Yes, absolutely!
Now, let's see, who is going to benefit from the removal of the block size limit.
1) Businesses. Yes, they are likely sitting on a decent network connection and will be able to process more txs and serve more customers.
2) Miners. Yes, they will move to a better network connection and be able to process more transactions with fees and gain more profits.
3) Users. Yes and No. It depends.
Users will benefit from the growing economy (driven by the first two categories of players) via profits they derive from the coins they still hold, but they will lose the ability to validate the rules of the game. It's a scenario where the users of Bitcoin become mere consumers. They no longer have a say in the way this particular economic environment operates.
Losing that second "key" (to access and maintain the blockchain in a permissionless way) puts the first "key" (the private one that holds the coins) in danger as well, as the new rules may develop into something that won't allow the users to receive and spend those coins in a permissionless way. That's where the whole ecosystem turns into something that defeats the purpose of Bitcoin in the first place.
Bitcoin (the network) is undoubtedly a "star", that produces bitcoins (the currency) and all the other goods that come with it. What holds the star together? The gravity and the sheer mass of its outer shell. It's the massive network of validating full nodes that prevents the large businesses and miners from colluding and forging the rules, but those active profit-driven players are definitely needed as well.
The only way for Bitcoin to continue as intended (to shine as a "star" that is) is if the mass of its users is well aware of what is it they are doing and why. A proper balance between the two forces in the ecosystem needs to be sought for it to become successful.
Changing the protocol rules is identical to a relatively rare and discreet transition stages that any star undergoes in order to find a new balance point, when the old one no longer serves its accumulated mass. That's when the block size limit needs to be raised. The new limit needs to resonate with the whole ecosystem as it's supposed to represent the interests of the whole. It needs to preserve enough mass in the outer shell (users and validators), but leave enough space and entropy for internal competition (businesses and miners) to continue to produce goods with higher energy levels than before.
Any protocol change needs to be checked against those three "keys" outlined above in order to preserve the original core value proposition that made the whole system attractive (and brought the economic pressure in) in the first place. If (in case of too small blocks) most of the economic activity moves off-chain (sidechains and such), while actual bitcoins are "parked" somewhere else, then the first "key" is in jeopardy, as people are no longer holding (and transacting with) their bitcoins per se. If (in case of fairly large blocks) too much of the economic activity is happening on-chain, then the second "key" is in danger, as people no longer have permissionless access to blockchain and cannot validate the rules. If people are clueless about the way things are, then the third "key" is missing and they need to find one first. If you managed to get this far and read the above, you got it!
Oh, and by the way, Bitcoin is not above the law, it is The Law and it Reigns Supreme!
