Re: Chinese Miners Revolt, Announces Plan to Hard Fork to Classic
Can someone with more brains than I have explain how an extra 1MB/10MB/20MB would make a lick of difference re: scaling?
Well, I'll leave your opener alone... but, the difference would be 100%/1100%/2100% greater potential throughput vs the ~3.7 something global tps we have now.
Just because your personal automobile can't hold 100 passengers, doesn't mean you shouldn't never try fitting a couple more in there with you.
This is turning out to be a poker game, with Core acting like they've got a royal flush, let's see if they get called.
Again, another mistake. 'Core' as a group is hard to represent, and does not have anything to do with this. The people who signed the agreement are the ones who are going to lose their reputation/respect if they fail to deliver a HF proposal.I agree that the miners made a mistake. Basically, if Gregory Maxwell wasn't at the agreement, you don't have an agreement.
Can someone with more brains than I have explain how an extra 1MB/10MB/20MB would make a lick of difference re: scaling?
As far as scalability is concerned, it almost does nothing to improve it. Moving from a 1 MB block size limit to a 2 MB block size limit would increase the average throughput from 3 TPS to 6 TPS. That's about it. Segwit does so much more and will deliver only slightly less throughput (on average) once adopted. If doubling the throughput of the network does almost nothing for scalability... then segwit does less than almost nothing for scalability with its 3MB per block max increase to data requirements and its 0.8MB gain in effective throughput.
Stolfi's right about one thing: this Chinese mining cartel is a problem. 
Check your premises, the chinese miners are really the only ones left to put a check on the real cartel, the information/software cartel that is using artificial production quotas to centrally plan the economy.