Yes.... get in your little dig, jbreher, and that will help us to have a substantive discussion, no?
Well, you're right. My cheap shot did nothing to move the dialogue along. Sorry.
Yet again...
...
I'm not sure exactly how to extract a single coherent point out of your reply without quoting the whole damned thing. Nevertheless, it would seem that you somehow believe that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset reflects some sort of status quo. Yet it is undeniable that this set of changes is a much greater change to the mechanics of Bitcoin than would be a simple 2MB max block size.
Let us focus upon that for a bit.
Your attempt to summarize my points seems a bit off, yet maybe you are somewhat in the ballpark of making a point that kind of resembles my point. Nonetheless, your making a summary seems to really be lacking in the engagement camp, but instead trying to shift the burden back onto me to explain further, rather than you explaining any of your points in a meaningful way.
To me, it seems that the status quo of bitcoin is the current 1mb limit on the blocksize, and seg wit seems to be a non-controverted next step that is in progress of being implemented .. in either April or May (depending upon whether there are significant problems during testing).. Accordingly, surely it seems that the plan to implement seg wit has become the status quo.. but such plan still remains a plan at this time and it has not been implemented yet..... so there is quite a bit of speculation concerning whether it is going to resolve more issues than it causes, and there are some questions about whether seg wit is going to cause unexpected issues... Nonetheless, the plan to implement seg wit seems to have reached consensus and therefore is the current plan forward.
A status quo type discussion should not really be controversial, even though while the status quo is in existence, there are proposals on the table to change it, and circumstances could arise in order that the status quo is changed.... In this situation, any change to the status quo or to plans about the status quo is accomplished through consensus..... that is the model and there is some controversy about that, too, so it seems.
My understanding is that seg wit has consensus while either a straight forward 2 mb increase to the blocksize limit does not have consensus and a hardfork to changing governance does not have consensus..
My understanding about getting closer in understanding is to attempt to figure out areas of agreement and disagreement and to hone in on those areas to see if we can come to a better understanding of facts and logic. Is this getting repetitive, or would you like to attempt another summary of what I just said, or are you o.k. with letting my words speak for themselves?