Since this XT drama began, I was wondering about Gavins desperate efford to force bigger blocksize, even after he obv. realized, that there is a strong resistance against this fork. I mean, he could have simply stepped back and wait for the right time to come up with his idea again. When the current blocksize really turns out to be problematic, then he would have a majority and a consensus.
Instead he is knowingly dividing/weakening the Bitcoin community (incl. himself) for his idea.
This behaviour doesn't seem appropriate to me. Is there something more behind it, than just a larger blocksize?
I think he has a big ego. And i don't like the way he did this. But i think the other side of the bitcoin devs are even more dangerous. Wanting to make transactions not confirm in order to create higher fees. Which would mean hindering adoption and a bad user experience. And unfortunately many of these developers would like that because when bitcoin gets more unuseable than their own altcoin, the lightning network will take these transactions over.
It is really a pity how the developers make politics.
Today i have read that one single bitcoin transaction costs so much electricy like 1.75 average us household uses in one day. That is a lot. And we have so many hashpower that we could still secure a hundred time more transactions.
The result for me is that we simply have too many miners. Mining is too rewarding. Which means too many miners want to play in it. And since they want profits they now claim we need to leave the blocksize at 1 Megabyte in order to artificially raise fees. That is stupid. On top it would mean they would have a short term gain but would kill bitcoin in the long run.
There is nothing wrong with the 8MB blocksize. Or even dropping this artificial limit totally. Spamming would be too expensive anyway.