Quote from: LaudaM on February 18, 2015, 10:11:27 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on February 18, 2015, 09:02:33 PM

Quote from: LaudaM on February 18, 2015, 07:59:54 PM

Quote from: onemorebtc on February 18, 2015, 07:40:04 PM

i still would like to hear when you think such a change is necessary.
you dont seem to be against any blocksize change as long as it is not needed: how do you define needed in this case?

In his view, there is no definition of needed in this case. (hope that I'm not mistaken)

A max block size is needed because of the asymmetric incentive structure.
--snip--
So... assuming there is a problem, the current proposal is not the solution.

A) I didn't not say that it was not needed.
B) I said that (if I correctly understood him) for him there isn't a situation where a change of the limit is needed.

I've been waiting for this 'solution', instead of just the 'don't fork it' stance.

The only solution they can come up with is sidechains, but those can be implemented when they're ready regardless of the outcome of the fork. What can't happen without the fork, however, is increased adoption and scalability. The only problem (if you can even call it a problem, since we're just going to end up ignoring them) is that the anti-fork crowd generally don't want increased adoption. They want a tool for the elites, so they're never going to be reasoned with regarding "need" because they don't care about anyone's need but their own. It's just another distraction to keep the thread moving and a desperate attempt to drum up support for their elitist agenda.

Reasons to oppose the fork:

You're a millionaire elitist and you don't want "lesser" entities using "your" blockchain
You've got your nose so far up MP's arse you can tell us what he had for breakfast the other day
You're happy to jeopardise Bitcoin's reputation when it can't process everyone's transactions and a massive backlog piles up, making Bitcoin appear slow and unreliable
You're making the only legitimate case I've heard so far in that one day in the very distant future, it *might* lead to centralisation if consumer hardware can't keep up with the requirements of running a full node

Reasons to support the fork:

You want an open and scalable network that anyone can use
You want a network that isn't going to fall over by hitting a pointless limit when more people start using it
You think that every word out of MP's arrogant, egotistical blogs sounds like a horrible vision of an incredibly bleak future that no one in their right mind would want to be a part of
You don't want to get left behind when the fork goes ahead, because it has enough support and it will go ahead with or without you