Quote from: Lauda on January 18, 2016, 05:45:30 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on January 18, 2016, 05:19:52 PM

Where do you get the notion that the changes being discussed are nonreversible? If we can go from 30-odd mb down to 1mb, then I'm pretty sure we could find our way down from 2 if it was deemed necessary.

You do realize that the industry and the userbase is completely different now and in comparison to the time when the change of ~30 to 1 MB was made? It was much easier to get consensus back then and satoshi was still leading the development.

Quote from: btcusury on January 18, 2016, 05:54:06 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on January 18, 2016, 05:19:52 PM

Quote from: btcusury on January 18, 2016, 04:07:47 PM

(...) campaign to direct the technology into a particular untested/risky nonreversible territory.

Where do you get the notion that the changes being discussed are nonreversible? If we can go from 30-odd mb down to 1mb, then I'm pretty sure we could find our way down from 2 if it was deemed necessary.

Alright, I suppose it would be reversible in an emergency situation in which the system is under such severe attack that everyone's coins are in jeopardy. Otherwise, good luck getting miners and others to agree to go back down to 1 MB.

You do realise that reducing blocksize only requires a softfork? It's much easier to go down than up. It wouldn't take an emergency, either. If there was even the slightest sign that larger blocks did jeopardise the network, the miners aren't going to hang around and let their source of income fall apart at the seams. Either incentives align, or they don't and it quickly reverts back to how it was.