Not sure I want to get involved in all this but I'll be running a node again at some point so trying to get beyond the trolling and do what is best for Bitcoin.
Thank you for your relevant thoughts and polite demeanor.
Allow me save you some time - Unlimited is not a great solution, and it won't be adopted. So forget about it. There is a fear-based false dichotomy being fostered right now that this fight is about Unlimited versus Segwit. The real fight is to just increase the effing blocksize with a simple hard fork AS WAS DONE IN 2014 ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS AND WITHOUT ANY ISSUES.
Unlimited only exists to block Segwit, and it's been quite effective: Unlimited blocks now surpass Segwit blocks. I think this conveys some sense of urgency to Core, which is long overdue, given that they've had their thumbs up their butts for FOUR+ YEARS now on this blocksize problem. I think we all know that the blockchain is problematic when you get too much volume and/or the blocksize is too big, but ask yourself, "Is Bitcoin is working properly today"?
Ver seems convinced that more usage = higher price which ignores velocity and isn't necessarily true. Supply and demand still applies no matter what.
Laws of supply and demand generally apply to price discovery of labor and assets, not currencies. The US Federal Reserve doubled the money supply in 2008-12 but the USD value remained constant, did you wonder how they did that? Also, BTC velocity is a touchy subject because much of the transaction base is spam and churn. I think Ver is stating the obvious that if Bitcoin is not useful to people, its value will go to zero. Hard to argue that. The BTC supply increases every day, and demand is likely increasing due to greater global acceptance and tightening capital controls. But how will millions of new users adopt Bitcoin? I can tell you that someone who waits 24 hours for their transaction to confirm will not be back... If exchanges are having a hard time setting higher transaction fees, imagine how much pain it would cause if they tried to implement Segwit?!
A straight 2mb upgrade I'd be happier with. Segwit only alters the rules slightly by tipping the weight of UTXOs
+1
Blocking Segwit seems to be just anti-Blockstream paranoia or a ploy by miners to keep the fees up for as long as they can.
Valid theories but no hard evidence. I think Blockstream has been a bit shady of late. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a $100 million corporation WITHOUT a profit motive and a plan to execute on. I find it strange to be in the company of Gavin, Ver, Hearn, etc., as I regard them as generally less tech-savvy than Core devs. Often times the most important thing is to "know what you don't know". I feel like the Core devs aren't aware of their lack of economic knowledge and outside perspective, or alternately (and far less likely) that they are playing dumb and have been compromised by a hidden agenda from Blockstream.
Unless an anti-segwit person comes up with and implements a real alternative scaling solution
Hard fork to 2MB, and then immediately start screaming about the next increase to 4MB in ten years.