its not about a bigger market capitalization..
its not about more money.
Nonsense. The people who are primarily pushing for ridiculous block sizes are the ones crying out that we need more users. It's obviously about money. If it wasn't about money, you'd be taking a safe path with scaling as there is zero need to risk anything. As I've previously stated, I'm not anti-HF as in
consensual upgrades, not controversial splits.
ridiculous blocksizes??
sorry but segwit is 4mb.. i proven that in a different topic and even supplied you a link.
so how is 2mb ridiculous??
I think that Bitcoin will split multiple times, within the next six months. Nobody can really stop it, that is a beautiful thing. I suppose somebody could create a "genesis fork" with a six month grace period, it would most likely not be the first chain to split off the Bitcoin network and gain a significant market share.
Just by saying that splitting up the userbase, infrastructure and network as a whole is a "beautiful thing" makes me question the sanity of some people.
Nothing good can nor will come out of that. Just confusion that will generally have negative side-effects.i actually agree with lauda's sentiment..
core fans scream doomsdays of controversial hard forks. but dont realise that core is preventing consensual forks by vetoing a release to ensure the community never get to a healthy majority. thus causing the controversy
No, Core isn't prevent anything. You're free to write a HF proposal as a BIP and see whether it gains attraction.
submit a bip to.............. ?
go on.. say it
CORE
well there already has been logical bips submitted, and the decision against implementing it was not vetoed out due to code, or logic or real reason. but due to false doomsdays and fake stats.. mainly illogical scare stories
which from reading your little awakening in another topic, you are beginning to see