Can't defend that , Galvin screwed up on Wright.
But he has more insight into BTC tech than you guys.
None of you have made a decent argument against block size increase.
And blockspeed changes would also work. (Litecoin proves that debate.)
how do you defend this :
You used to prefer PoS
Seems like a little payment and your opinion changes.
FYI: LOL, You claimed Galvin knew it was a problem, so you made him an authority in your post , which his own words refuted your post.
https://news.bitcoin.com/andresen-blocksize-limit-remove/
But he has more insight into BTC tech than you guys.
None of you have made a decent argument against block size increase.
And blockspeed changes would also work. (Litecoin proves that debate.)
how do you defend this :
You used to prefer PoS
Seems like a little payment and your opinion changes.
I'm glad it at least a Proof of Stake coin think most of these little alts should start going that route.
I agree on this, imo POS is better, let's see how it goes with this coin, you never know.FYI: LOL, You claimed Galvin knew it was a problem, so you made him an authority in your post , which his own words refuted your post.
https://news.bitcoin.com/andresen-blocksize-limit-remove/
Quote from: Galvin
Yes, lets eliminate the limit. Nothing bad will happen if we do.
If you're going to appeal to authority, let's just remember that this is the guy that claimed Craig Wright is Satoshi. 
It starts even at 2 MB. Please look into the original Bitcoin Classic. Gavin knew this was a problem, that's why the original proposal in Classic had additional TX size and sigops limitations (if I remember correctly). The higher you go the easier it becomes to attack via this vector.