i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream.
lets not count the shills....
It is hard not to. Once you say that they are being unreasonable because they're rejecting everything from Core and claim 'shill-like behavior' they attack you like a lion defending its cubs. lets not count the shills....
how the F is getting an upgrade to effective block size of 2MB ASAP with segwit, and then later 4MB effective block size with HF increase, not acceptable to some poeple? and they would rather risk War, over getting the 2MB HF done first (a few months sooner), this is ludacris!
Actually the 2 MB proposal (BIP109) is flawed by design and that is one of the problems. The grace period is too short (even Garzik agrees with this and he 'supports' Classic), the consensus threshold is too low, it doesn't provide a solution for the quadratic validation problem (it adds a limit/workaround to prevent the problem). However, the problem with Segwit is that people do not seem to understand it (which is normal, they don't really understand how the underlying protocols work either) but they're being hyperbolic about it. There is also that group that would reject a perfect[1] solution to scaling (right now; with 1 Million TPS without harming any part of the network (e.g. decentralization)) just because it was presented by Core. [1] Assuming that a 'perfect' thing could actually exist (the TPS is rather a random example).
This is exactly the point that so many people miss, and they cannot wrap their heads around the logic.
The burden is not on the status quo to provide the road map, but instead it is on the presenter of the proposed change to both show proof that the change is needed and that their proposal adequately addresses the described problem. It appears quite clear that BIP 109 does not meet either the burden of persuasion or the burden of production.