Quote from: jonald_fyookball on February 07, 2016, 05:12:32 AM

Quote from: MicroGuy on February 07, 2016, 05:07:49 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 07, 2016, 02:12:23 AM

2 MB block size brings nothing.

This is strange answer coming from a bitcointalk.org staff member. But you are the same person that said Satoshi's vision is irrelevant? Funny how well now I can remember you and your ways.

I thought 2MB blocksize would mean keeping Satoshi's protocol intact, whilst relieving full blocks, quelling the current international dispute, and at the same time leaving open the possibility for SegWit, and other Blockstream corporate-sponsored programs.

Strange indeed... the same people that cry most loudly against 'contentious hard forks' are the ones that seem to be against implementing a simple 2MB increase right now that would make the forking threat disappear.

that's an interesting way of framing things. removing the threat of a contentious hard fork -- by implementing a contentious hard fork. brilliant.

meanwhile, Gavin stated that 2mb is "absurdly small." but since his first [maximalist] attempt to remove Core's commit access failed, he is now trying the minimalist approach to remove Core's commit access. it's not a "compromise" at all. he has turned all the bullshit "sky is falling" rhetoric about the urgency of 20mb blocks entirely on it's head. quite clearly, the end goal of such rhetoric was "anything that will remove Core's commit access" -- now he's just being transparent about it. 20mb was never urgent at all, obviously.