We never wanted a split, we just want bitcoin to be available to everyone.
If you really think idea behind these controversial fork attempts is that, then I'm sorry to tell you, but you've been deceived. You may want that, which is
perfectly fine, but that's not the intent of the people who started with the controversial forks.
The facts still state that you are wrong, and 4MB blocksizes are perfectly safe. 20MB with xthin is also perfectly safe. But i'm happy with 4MB for now, or even 2MB until we need more.
Saying "xx MB block size is safe" is wrong. Saying "xx MB block size is safe if we limit the TX size to xx or less" may be true. These two statements are inherently different, ergo I'm not wrong.
No one has the money to set up a several months long non-stop spam attack.
This got to be a bad joke, right? A fair amount of people have enough money to spam up the network for a very long time.
This is all legitimate users and you know it.
Please post the testing methodology that extracts 'real user transactions' from the pool of all transactions, i.e. excludes 'spam transactions'. I'm sure everybody would like to know how this revolutionary method works.
Quadratric validation time doesn't matter if you just limit the transaction size to 1MB or lower.
The statement contradicts itself.
It matters until you add even more limits to Bitcoin.