Re: Chinese Miners Revolt, Announces Plan to Hard Fork to Classic
I agree that the miners made a mistake. Basically, if Gregory Maxwell wasn't at the agreement, you don't have an agreement.
I disagree. He's smart enough not to participate in closed-door meetings which are counter-intuitive to Bitcoin.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.
It does nothing and comes with a risk. Wake me up again when the Classic developers coded up something useful, just don't come to me with trash like header-first-mining. 
If for example, we were to increase the maximum block size to say 10MB, (which I believe to be safe currently), then blocks on average would probably be about 10-11% full or so. If transaction growth were to grow at say 30% per year (which would be huge, and probably higher then what is realistic), then after about 8 years then the maximum block size would need to be increased again when the demand for transactions would create the need for blocks to be about 90% full.
How many times does it need to be told to you? Are you not listening or are you not able to comprehend what you're reading? 2 MB block size limit is unsafe on its own (without artificial limits) due to quadratic validation time and now you come with this nonsense story of how 10 MB is safe currently? I don't even want to talk about the ever decreasing node count because of resource usage.