Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 05, 2017, 11:57:48 AM

Quote from: AngryDwarf on March 05, 2017, 11:41:00 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if some of franky1's concerns are true, but cannot confirm this as it is way beyond my technical knowledge and expertise in this area.

FYI, franky has been having his "concerns" for 3 years and counting.

Do you know what happened to the issues that Franky used to complain about? He no longer complains. Because they were demonstrated to be unproductive trolling. When he finds they don't work, he simply switches to newer trolling strategies instead.

If you'd believed anything Franky had stated or predicted, Bitcoin would be hugely unsuccessful cryptocurrency with all the users abandoning it in fear and frustration. But it keeps becoming more popular, and more successful.

concerns years ago. blockstream take over.
community wanted onchain scaling with dynamic blocks and compromised down to initially 2mb dynamic in late 2015..

yes carlton too wanted dynamic blocks aswell, funnily enough

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 31, 2015, 02:20:38 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere

Quote from: Carlton Banks

no-one credible is saying that, how many times...

Before you say that I was using a straw man argument, I was not. I did not say that you think we should not increase the block size. I know that you support a dynamic limit, and as soon as it is implemented and a mechanism for a fork has been put in place I would most likely support that as well instead of BIP101. At that point we will most likely be on the same side of the fork again.

I would welcome that outcome.

^ one of many examples

blockstream devs LukeJr and Adam back said they will do their part....
spring 2016.. they backtracked and now we are left with their empty gesture that is not even a guaranteed or real expected fixed 2mb. let alone dynamic
and instead an attempt to get their nodes at the top of the network topology (upstream filters)

their 2mb boost wont occur, the other fixes wont occur* and we are still left on the reliance of them spoon feeding out code rather than let the nodes independantly set the limits and use consensus to set the overall rule.
*(needs users to move funds to segwit keys and only use segwit keys to achieve anything, but doesnt fix/prevent the native key users = problems not solved, solutions not achieved)

Quote from: Senor.Bla on March 05, 2017, 08:40:54 AM

I don't see however the reasons for BU to not compromising. Many of them seem to care about Bitcoin and want a good solution.
The emergent consensus seems to be their biggest hold up. Why are they still pushing for it. Why not just go for a quick increase of blocksize to 2MB? What are there reasons to push fore there solution without compromise?

thre was a compromise.. the consensus roundtable of late 2015.. the community settled on a 2mb starting point but wanting it dynamic so that we didnt need these "human" meetings and instead could let the nodes decide what node can cope with and then the pools produce blocks within what nodes can tolerate.

but guess what blockstream backtracked and pretended they are not involved that much in core and cant code a solution.
strange thing is that thee late 2015 consensus event should have just invited the blockstreams office janitor instead and that probably would have been more productive