As transactions grow, there'll be no other option but to increase the block size. As for how large the block should be, I strongly feel that the answer to this question should be achieved via consensus,because it will not be a "one and done" operation.
The amount of transactions will continue to increase and therefore the issue of block sizes will come up again and again in line with the build up of adoption
There are loads of smart folk hammering away at this problem so I see all the kinks being ironed out before too long
Topic: For you what should the block size be? (Read 477 times)
The article is decent. However, there is something wrong with some of their results:
What should the block size be? - Scale as required 52,8%
When should the block size be implemented? - Add a scaling system now for indefinite growth 54,8%.
This doesn't match up. Scaling are required != indefinite growth system.
What should the block size be? - Scale as required 52,8%
When should the block size be implemented? - Add a scaling system now for indefinite growth 54,8%.
This doesn't match up. Scaling are required != indefinite growth system.
Quote
At the same time, over 40% are concerned that the core developers do not have sufficient experience in Economic Theory
Based on the opinions of mostly (not all) random people with zero economic or technical background. Yes, this makes sense to me. 
nice read too:
However, with greater adoption of Bitcoin, there is a long-term secular pressure to increase the block size. Even for a conservative application of Bitcoin in global settlements, with low transaction volume per person per year, the transaction capacity needs to be raised well above the upper limits of most block size proposals
This means larger blocks are inevitable. Unfortunately, this means that data-center mining and full nodes may be inevitable too depending on hardware and network infrastructure performance over time. The centralization risk depends on the adoption curve, the degree that layer 2 networks remove transactions off-chain, and number of on-chain transactions that are attempted despite the presence of layer 2 systems.
Failing to raise the transaction capacity centralizes the number of actors with access to the blockchain, recreating a financial system that presently exists. Ironically, while the network may be able to run on anyone’s computer, none of the participants may be able to afford to use it. This scenario describes the left side of the Bitcoin failure bathtub.
https://medium.com/@OB1Company/scaling-bitcoin-9366988972b6
However, with greater adoption of Bitcoin, there is a long-term secular pressure to increase the block size. Even for a conservative application of Bitcoin in global settlements, with low transaction volume per person per year, the transaction capacity needs to be raised well above the upper limits of most block size proposals
This means larger blocks are inevitable. Unfortunately, this means that data-center mining and full nodes may be inevitable too depending on hardware and network infrastructure performance over time. The centralization risk depends on the adoption curve, the degree that layer 2 networks remove transactions off-chain, and number of on-chain transactions that are attempted despite the presence of layer 2 systems.
Failing to raise the transaction capacity centralizes the number of actors with access to the blockchain, recreating a financial system that presently exists. Ironically, while the network may be able to run on anyone’s computer, none of the participants may be able to afford to use it. This scenario describes the left side of the Bitcoin failure bathtub.
https://medium.com/@OB1Company/scaling-bitcoin-9366988972b6
Brave New Coin has published an article talking about general results about a survey of block size and related questions, are you agree with what they have published?
http://bravenewcoin.com/news/the-blockchain-scalability-survey/
http://bravenewcoin.com/news/the-blockchain-scalability-survey/
Jump to: