Again, it is possible that the devs do not see how wrong that argument is?
The max block size that was put into the rules in 2010 was not "1 MB" but "a value small enough to prevent big-block attack but still much larger than traffic so that it would not create spurious scarcity, and every transaction would be confirmed as quickly as possible."
Can you provide source for this or did you just make it up?
For example, there are these comments by Satoshi on 2010-10-03, when the block size limit had already been lowered to 1 MB. Jeff Garzik had proposed a patch that would raise the max block size to 7.16 MB, so that bitcoin would be able to handle PayPal's average traffic at the time:
Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment.
We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete. When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
Up to that date, the traffic had been less than 1800 tx/day on average (today it is 120'000 tx/day), which means ~7 kB per block (today it is ~450 kB/block).
With 1 MB max size limit, the capacity at the time was the same as today, ~200'000 tx/day or ~750 kB/block. (It is less than 1 MB/block because certain optimizations by the miners force them to mine some number of empty blocks).
So, by setting the max block size to 1 MB, the devs at the time set the capacity to about 110 times the demand. Obviously the intent was not to create "capacity scarcity", any time soon...
But today the capacity is only ~65% more than the demand.
There is NO evidence that the centralization of mining that happened so far was due to the natural growth in the block sizes, or that such growth would affect it in the foreseeable future. That is just one of several dishonest FUD arguments that Adam Back used at one point. The economies of scale that resulted in concentration of mining are due to the savings in the costs of equipment, space, electricity, cooling, personnel, management, etc. that exist for bulk purchasers and for certain geographic locations.
You are again completely fabricating a straw man...? That's absolutely not what I'm saying and I don't believe I've ever read anything of the sort by Adam.
As for increasing block size having an effect on mining centralization if we do not proceed carefully and by increments there are several technical aspects that can lead to this conclusion.
" in my quote is not the previous phrase, that you bolded, but the claim that I was replying to: that increasing the block size would lead to increased mining centralization. That is one of several baseless claims that Adam made (after "increasing the block size limit will cause the number of full nodes to decrease").
centralized over the last 2-3 years; but the causes of the centralization are well understood, and growth of the traffic was not among them. Those causes will continue for the foreseeable future, and keeping or raising the block size limit will make no difference for mining centralization.
