Quote from: canth on January 17, 2016, 12:49:48 PM

Quote from: Amph on January 17, 2016, 12:33:52 PM

Quote from: canth on January 17, 2016, 11:40:25 AM

Quote from: Amph on January 17, 2016, 08:50:40 AM

i'm fairly certain that none of those will get any real consensus besides core,

core is aiming as well to increase the limit to 2mb, so the other are obsolete

they seems like a way, for some dev to say " this version is mine, i made it..."

Do you have any updates showing that core devs are moving toward a 2MB max block size? I agree that they are going to have to do it eventually but communication from Core devs have been relatively quiet this week after most miner (pools) indicated they would use Classic (if needed) to move to 2MB blocks via a HF. I am not looking to get into yet another debate about the merits of block size, just wanted to see if you had any info I don't.

(deleted image - waiting for a better miner representation)

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq, they want to do it via segregate witness

At best, that's a 1.7M block size equivalent. The miners supporting 2M blocks via Classic are well aware of SW. I'm also very supportive of SW although less so for the accounting trick scalability increase and more so for the new scripting features and malleability fix. Back to my original point, no Core does not support a 2M block size via HF which is what miners (among others) are now pushing for.

it's equivalent of 1.75 mega at minimum, and it can be expanded to be above 2MB, and anyway 2mb, is a temporary step toward the issue, so having 1.75 or 2mb will not change anything

in case tere will be a saturation of the 2mb limit, having 1.75 will suffice with a little delay on the transaction, much better than what happened with the stress test