In the end, even the small poll up above clearly shows there is no consensus about it.

Hence, bitcoin stays as it is.

Forkers are welcome to fork out and enjoy their blindful life within some cheap tipping altchain.

But there is no need to POW it, litecoin or ripple would do the work perfectly.

Finally we're getting somewhere.  So you're not opposed to a flexible cap based on demand as long as it's handled conservatively?  Was that really so difficult?  Why couldn't you just say that a few weeks ago?  The phrase "blood from a stone" comes to mind.  Obviously you couldn't say it without throwing in some conspiracy guff and once again insinuating Gavin is the devil, but hey, it's still progress.

Well I wouldn't want you to make it too easy.  We'll call it slow progress, then.  Still counting it as a win. 

exactly, the limit increase doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

BIP000: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jhwi3/i_support_

Upal's dynamic blocksize proposal has now been assigned a BIP number, BIP106:  https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0106.mediawiki

It already has advantages that many want to see in an "ideal" solution.  It's algorithmic.  It can lower the blocksize as well as raise it if need be, so it adapts to the load the network is bearing.  It would likely encourage fee markets in a more subtle and natural manner than any artificial "blunt-force" caps.  It doesn't grant too much power to the miners, unlike BIP100.  Unlike BIP101 where the size would only be altered every two years, this would alter it every two weeks, so it would be more nimble and adapt more quickly to both surges and lulls in traffic.

However, there are concerns raised with potential gaming of the system and manipulating the size by pushing extra transactions.  Doubling may be excessive, so a lower percentage may need to be considered.  It should also be noted that BIP106 only considers the demand for block space and doesn't take miners' resources into consideration, which could potentially impact decentralisation if not kept in check (but again, changing the doubling part to a lower percentage would help in this regard).

What other suggestions, considerations and improvements could be made to this proposal to make it more appealing to a larger majority?

So if we further alter juiceayres' amendment:


This would alter the blocksize daily if required, but the maximum increase or decrease per week would be 12.5%

Is that something that would appeal to people on both sides of the fence?

It's certainly possible, but if they want to collect a greater quantity of fees, ultimately, keeping blocks deliberately small won't in their best interests.  Diminishing block rewards will naturally incentivise miners to produce larger blocks over time (providing they're significantly filled to trigger the increase).  In theory, this should garner the best of both worlds.  Not an exponential increase, but still room for growth.  Not a blunt-force cap, but a dynamic threshold that reacts to demand.

Yes, flix, that's what the previous five posts in the thread were speaking in reference to.     (plus some BIP105 and a possible middle ground between the two of them) 

I like BIP106, but feel that at present, it would attract the same kind of vehement opposition BIP101 is receiving, as doubling/halving the blocksize may prove excessive.  So some have suggested toning it down a smidgen to avoid frightening potential support away and provide greater potential for a compromise to be reached.

I'm talking about shrinking blocksizes, not keeping blocks small -- a pool with 10% of hashpower can prevent any shrinkage, i.e. keeping blocksize limit unreasonably high, so the supposed algorithm isn't sound. I'm not saying that it would be rational, just pointing this out.