Quote from: adamstgBit on March 08, 2016, 12:26:26 AM

your overstating the effect of a "bandaid solution" of raising the block limit sooner rather then later.

or do you blieve 1MB FOREVER = longterm health??

No, I want much larger blocks as I have stated multiple times.

The first idea is to make Bitcoin more scalable first by optimizing it because even at 1MB we are seeing problems.
The second idea is to get LN and payment channels in the wild to insure we don't continue to keep delaying these because we have enough capacity.

The fear from raising the blocksize as a temporary bandaid is that it will work and get people comfortable with HF's that simply bumps up the blocksize without developing payment channels. This isn't speculation ... look at Classics Road map -

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

There is absolutely no mention of payment channels but they suggest adopting dynamic blocksizes in 3rd Q this year which do not address any centralization concerns. Gavin has gone on record suggesting that no limits would be just fine for bitcoin and many classic supporters want everything on the chain. Kicking the can could lead us down the path where we don't treat bitcoin like a settlement layer... This would be disastrous!

If you don't think so do the math on 128MB blocks + thin/weak blocks vs 8MB blocks + LN + thin/weak blocks.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 08, 2016, 12:19:50 AM

fine then,

the endless debate with 0 progress for years is hurting bitcoin image

better?

I don't agree with this. With the difficulty in a political coup making changes to bitcoin it shows investors and outsiders how resilient bitcoin is from an attack and how raising the 21million limit will be next to impossible if going from 1-2 Mb limit on something far less controversial than changing the inflation rate would be.\