What is the argument for increasing the block size?

If we had larger blocks we could fit more transactions into each one. (I would counter this by saying the mining pools control how many transactions are included; we can't force them to include more transactions.)
If we have larger blocks more people and companies will adopt bitcoin because will be able to handle the traffic. (maybe, but at the cost of security and reliability of the network. Also a full blown cyber war between the the two block-chains / networks.)

Miners want small blocks for two reasons. They are faster to propagate across the network, reducing the rate of orphan blocks and it allows them to earn more money in fees because the space is limited.
Users want widespread adoption, not for Bitcoin or any underlying ethical reasons but to get rich. They think larger blocks are the only way forward.

Side chains are nothing more then 3rd party services that have nothing to do with the Bitcoin Network. They operate in there own ecosystem under the control and protection of the operators /owners of that company.

Implementing larger blocks requires a 'hard-fork' this means after the fork two chains, two networks will exist, both viable and self sustaining. If the community is split both chains will survive and claim to be 'the-real-Bitcoin-network'. It has been estimated that as much as 70% of our network nodes do not have enough RAM to support larger blocks at this time. We must first upgrade our network; then find consensus or risk all out war.

Going forward the Bitcoin community will be continuously reevaluating the constantly changing network load (demand / adoption) against hardware capability within the consumer market to insure security and reliability above all else.

I can drill down into something you don't understand just ask.

Topic: What is the argument for increasing the block size? (Read 404 times)