Quote from: BitUsher on January 21, 2016, 11:37:58 AM

Quote from: oda.krell on January 21, 2016, 11:34:01 AM

In other words: 2MB maxblocksize or not, segwit now or later -- in any case, the majority of the Bitcoin economy seems to be against artificial transaction scarcity.

Source? Hopefully you aren't basing this off of an unscientific Toomin like poll with small sample sizes and no controls of sample data.
I would also like to analyze the questions posed in the poll as that can greatly effect the responses.

I.E...

1) Do you want to increase the block size for bitcoin to have very small fees for everyday tx's?

vs

2) Do you want the bitcoin chain to remain efficient and lean with a decentralized p2p payment layer that keeps tx's small for everyday purchases?

Users would likely say yes to both the above even when they are very different plans.

I've already answered that: hashpower (slight majority to strong majority) plus major companies plus the fact that only a fringe of the posters in here, and nearly none on reddit or otherwhere, defend artificial scarcity means (most likely) an economic majority rejects the latter, but seems to be doubtful about technical issues (or doesn't understand them).

You'd rather see a poll? Sure, we can have one, maybe in this thread, or anywhere in this forum - however, I'm pretty sure whatever result we get will be challenged on grounds of manipulation, brigading, whatever.

The real test will be in case we're getting a hardfork. I don't think these should be taken lightly, but I'm also not convinced they are the 'death sentence' some make them out to be. This really runs down to a few basic psychological assumptions people seem to make: will "getting used to hardforks" inevitably mean crypto will be subverted, and capital diluted? Or can they become a (carefully) employed tool to bring about required major changes in the software, without dividing the network beyond repair. I'm leaning towards the latter, in case that wasn't clear already.