It's the
FULLBLOCALYPSETMI think I'm done arguing. It just has to play out now.
(I was actually going to use that word but couldn't remember it exactly.)
... they have no logical ground to stand on and the whole edifice is crumbling, Crassic was just the Hearn echo swansong
52% to 72% of hashpower*, two of the most respected developers**, plus what looks like a majority of community sentiment in favor*** are saying otherwise. Oh, right, and I forgot to mention loaded posted he's in favor of 2MB****
* Depending on whether you believe rumors of "false pledges of 2MB allegiance" by some pools.
** Yes, yes, we know... "Gavin is a government shill!", "paid for by the banks", etc.
*** In here, across all forums of btctalk, perhaps doubtful -- but much less so on r/bitcoin and r/btc.
**** On reddit. Caveat: not via signed message, so could be fake.
I said that I will never speculate about price again since I started developing, even though I am in the speculation sub-forum I am going to hold to my word and not speculate about the price...
I am not against raising the block size, I am strongly in favor because Bitcoin is at the edge of technical death, most blocks are full and there is a ton of unconfirmed transactions waiting (with valid fees paid) to be included in the next blocks and the number is going up exponentially. One of the fundamental points of Bitcoin is failing, Bitcoin is no longer cheap/free especially for small transactions and this will be even worse if the price goes up.
Raising the Block size to 2 MB will not solve the problem, it will just buy us some more time, a month, two or maybe even 6 months but we will hit the cap again and when we hit that cap we better have a better solution prepared because we can't fork Bitcoin every 6 months or so to raise the block size cap.
Bitcoin is already failing as a payment system, even if we raise the block size today to 32MB, technically we wont be able to make more than 100 transaction a second, and at this rate of adoption this means certain death.