Pieter Wuille : ?
Pieter proposed an
excellent suggestion to slowly and moderately increase the block size limit. I think this would be a wise middle ground, hopefully something that all devs are willing to consider as a reasonable compromise.
Even if they think it's not perfect, it's not that dramatic. And it's most definitely
way better to have a least a unanimous decision for the time being, rather than strictly holding on to each own's position and risking Bitcoin to be split up in Core and XT (which is devastating).
Seriously... Nobody can claim that Pieter's proposal of growing by 2
1/16 (≈ 4.4%) every 2
23 seconds (≈ 97 days), or about 17% per year, is in any way ridiculous or damaging or shortsighted.
Adam Beck on reddit 2 days ago:
...I also proposed a simple compromise: 2MB immediately, then 4MB in 2 years, 8MB in 4 years and then re-evaluate what to do next based on experience with how well lightning, sidechains etc work in practice. 4 years is a really long time in Bitcoin, and I think racing off into the future with an 8GB block is inadvisably risky. Very hard to predict 20 years into the future and likely wrong in one direction or other with deleterious effects.
https://www.reddit.com/user/adam3usJeff Garzik : Core but will like to see some link.
Jeff proposed
BIP 102 to increase the block size to 2MB. Intended as a temporary solution, to give us all more time and space to think longer about a more definitive solution.
He earlier proposed
BIP 100 where block size limit is dynamically adjusted every 12000 blocks (3 months) depending on block size usage over the past 12000 blocks. Much like how mining difficulty is adjusted.
