Quote from: runam0k on March 05, 2016, 12:58:04 PM

Disagree. The most influential Core devs want to use the block size limit as a production quota, forcing fees up (and some TXs/users out), partly to focus the minds of devs on other solutions. They have said as much.

That's a complex economic question which is a straw man in this case. Just because they want to use it in a certain way, that does not make them a "systemic risk". You do have to realize that the block size limit can't be infinitely raised every time we start nearing the maximum that the blocks can take.

Quote from: runam0k on March 05, 2016, 12:58:04 PM

The limit was never intended for that and there has never been any discussion or BIP or similar relating to this _completely new policy_.

The discussion has been going on for years.

Quote from: runam0k on March 05, 2016, 12:58:04 PM

Also, how is he "wasting more time"? We have to sit around and wait for SegWit anyway, which is at least a month away. We can't do anything about that.

He does so by just complaining (in a rather nicely written way). This is just going to cause additional dissent between the community (e.g. /r/btc). I'd like to see actual proposals that help solve problems.

Quote

In order to avoid such a frightening scenario, Armstrong argued that we need to take a path forward that accomplishes 3 major goals:
Long term, we need to form a new team to work on the bitcoin protocol

I see nothing more than an attempt at taking over the keys of the main implementation (or control over developers).