Pro tip: read yourself twice before posting such contradictory hypothetical nonsense.
PS: Moore is dead.
You're the one who fails to understand basic concepts. I never said that we should increase blocksize to X in X amount of time,
I was making an example. I said that it is possible that the network can safely take a much bigger block size in the future. We would only know this by running tests at said time; only after those tests are successful would we increase the block size. This is not contradictory nor nonsense.
Either get a degree in IT or stop posting false information related to what the network can take and what it can not.So we see it technically nearly identical. I think we most differ politically.
That's possible but I'm not into politics nor am I familiar with many terms due to English not being my native language.
Don't know. But I don't think this to be suspicous. Maybe they are enhencing the voting-mechanism? maybe they want to get more people on board before releasing the code? We'll see.
They're planning something.
Nobody forgot. Some people, like me, call this consens-finding resp finding of a compromise.
The word 'urgent' is contradictory to a compromise. If something is urgent you can't compromise on something much lesser, else it was not urgent in the first place.
Something nice from IRC:
They're at it again. Bitcoin XT/Unlimited/Classic developers are shilling emotionally charged rhetoric declaring the failure of Bitcoin. These blog posts are promoted by their connections in the (((international media))) to try to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt [nytimes.com] around the status of Bitcoin and bully people into accepting their suicidal "solutions" to problems that don't really exist [medium.com] involving block size limits.