The reason is that I don't find your answers convincing, nor rigorously analyzed or presented, for the most part. That even applies to Peter R, in terms of many of his answers on this. His paper was good but it only addressed a small part of the larger set of questions.
then i'm sure you'll except the fact that i find your fears even less rigorously presented.
Sure. I haven't claimed otherwise, and I don't really think most of my posts on this should be convincing to anyone. They are generally conversational in tone and not trying to be authoritative. Although occasionally I do point out clear errors on specific points.
The thing is, I see this as a really hard problem to answer in a rigorous way. As I said, Peter R's paper was really good but only looked a small portion of the relevant concerns. I imagine it was also a fair amount of work. Now imagine five or so more papers like that looking at other aspects of the problem, and finally some additional papers looking at the entire thing at a system level. That's what is really needed. I don't think we are going to get that before this issue or the conflict over it becomes a serious problem one way or another.
We are trying to design an airplane upgrade while the plane is in the air, without any real knowledge of aerodynamics.
I agree with everything you said above, and I appreciate having people like you who understand how scientific progress is often made
incrementally by analyzing a small part of a larger and more complex problem.
However, I'm not sure I agree with everything you might have
implied (correct me if I'm wrong). I agree we do not yet have sufficient knowledge to choose the
best course of action regarding the block size limit, but that applies equally well--and perhaps more so--to keeping the limit constant at 1 MB.
I personally think we should increase the limit
in some way while we continue to perform the research you suggested above. This seems like the
least bad way to move forward. Do you disagree?
