I have been arguing on these forums extensively, you can not say that I do not have a proper argument, the underlying vision between Core and alternatives like Classic and Unlimited are very far apart, there is a divergence of vision. I choose for a two megabyte increase now because it is less complicated then segwit, ideally I would like to see a well vetted version of segwit applied together with a increased blocksize applied as a hard fork.
You don't have a proper technical argument; I don't care about your political, social, ethical visions of what should and shouldn't be. Who are you to decide this? Segwit has many other benefits besides the increase in capacity which the forkers seem to ignore because they don't understand or value them.
However segwit is not ready yet now
How can you claim something like this? Have you done sufficient testing that proves that segwit will not be ready for April? If not, then don't make false statements.
Then you need to argue how increasing to two megabyte increases centralization. Which is obviously not the case in any significant way. The opposite might be true by helping to decentralize development.
It does do that. The argument is whether the increase is negligible or not. Longer validation time, more bandwidth, more storage, more processing power, propagation delay, orphans; sound familiar?
You say all the time that increasing the blocksize leads to centralization, you even implied it in your last quote.
It does.
I have nothing against LN as long as the Bitcoin blockchain is not unnecessarily restricted.
Nothing is being restricted and certainly not unnecessarily.
If that is true, then Bitcoin is doomed. The next stage will be to add video clips and facebook discussions. The odd coin transfer will have to fit in where it can, and compete withhigh price obituaries.
You're a fool; how could you possibly question or alter "how Bitcoin was designed". Let's store everything on the Bitcoin blockchain!
