Quote from: franky1 on March 05, 2017, 02:41:19 PM

Quote from: Senor.Bla on March 05, 2017, 02:36:18 PM

What i could condense from the arguments of core/blockstream is that they are afraid of the dynamic blocksize, because it would give miners to much power. So what do they want now? Set them themselves instead of meetings or a dynamic?
What is the reason for BU to hang on to the dynamic? Is it only because they don't want these meetings too? To avoid to hard fork to often?

dynamic blocks DO NOT give pools the power.
node consensus is the power. and pools know that.
pools could produce any blocksize they want but if nodes orphan a block... that block is metaphorically in the trashcan. thus pools wont do things that waste their electric and time.

dynamic scaling works in a 1,2,3 step bases.. the blockstream 'dynamic is doomsday'ers however twist the logic of reality and talk about the 3,1 fake methodology(backwards and skipping a step) which is not how it will play out, but helps them scare the community into thinking without the blockstream devs spoonfeeding and without king maxwell standing on his mount preaching the rules, bitcoin would break

Here is the part where i'm confused. The argument goes like this. We have dynamic blocks and there is a 2.5MB blocked mined. Node A sees it as invalid and drops it, but node B and C accept it as well as all Miners. Bitcoin will built on this block and Node A will have to accept it or fork. Right?

Now we have the same scenario but Nodes A and B (the majority) rejects the block and only Node C and all miners accept it. Wouldn't this mean we would still built on top of this 2.5MB block and lose 2 nodes? It's an invalid block to the majority of Nods, but they have no miners behind them, so who is going to mine for them? Wouldn't this situation be technically considered as a fork?