I support Satoshi's ideas.
I have never heard that Satoshi propose exponential growth of block. (doubling size every 2 years)
that's a compromise Gavin did for you folk, Satoshi didn't support a limit at all.
The block size limit is a short term hack. Someday we might get beyond such a limit, but it could be quite a while. BIP100 looks promising though.
"a short term hack" is how I see it, what concerns me is developers appear to be leveraging it to push through other hacks. (hacking the hack - postponing indefinably until such time as other hard fork changes could be bundled in with this one.)
BIP100 is good in that it removes the hard fork limit, my reservations though are that it does nothing to erode the centralized control system that has evolved. I prefer Bib 101 as it implies some central gate keepers need to eat humble pie, however nether are my first choice.
At this stage I'd like to start seeing more decentralized development, the notion that Bitcoin is resilient in that if the protocol is modified the ideals will never be eroded because it is open source and can be forked to keep the original intent appears to only be valid so long as we share the same motives as the centralized development team.
The very idea of forking that was originally proposed to protect Bitcoin Values was vehemently opposed by the centralized developers who expressed disdain that they were not consulted and their process for seeking permission to propose change was not adhere too, even going so far as calling the idea of forking to remove the hard limit a threat to the very success of bitcoin.
I think there is a distortion of perception and lack of empathy all round. ultimately it is the people who put economic energy into the idea that make it viable, and while developers are all important, they are not the gods who conduct this experiment, its the people who put in there economic energy.
Your reasoning is interesting to me. Mostly because your evaluation appears to contradict your conclusion. And so, I suspect you have a some well thought out ideas and nuances that you've not yet communicated.
Both 100 and 101 provide a mechanism for more block size. Choosing between the two may depend on your perspectives and assessment of different risk levels within the operating groups.
Do you see more centralized control among developers or miners?
- If development is more centralized, BIP100, (developers giving controls to miners).
- If mining is more centralized, BIP101, (developers retaining control over block size increases and schedules).
Both remain fairly centralized, though both are less so than they previously have been. From your discourse, it would seem your evaluation would be the devs are more centralized and so would favor BIP100, (irrespective of who authored it).
my take on this is that BIP 101 would be more favorable b/c it doesn't involve "voting" twice, imo. formal vote once and then again with the block versioning. example might be they formally vote yes and then change their minds and vote no thru versioning for whatever reason. giving miners that much say doesn't seem proportionate to everyone else's (nodes, merchants, users) participation.
i like 101 b/c it is automated and imo attempts to remove as much core dev decision making in the process. knowing Gavin, he'd like to remove himself from the process as much as possible, except for routine maintenance on core. he has the big picture and all his actions to date have demonstrated a willingness to let Bitcoin Run with a hands off approach as well as from a charity perspective as demonstrated by giving away 10000 BTC, Satoshi's trust in him, his refunding of BTCGuild for lost rewards from 0.8.1, and his overall demeanor and presentation.
personally, i like No Limit b/c of the free mkt dynamic it creates by placing all the control on to a user/miner negotiation. miners have every incentive to prevent bloat and adverse network affects from that.
