Quote from: ebliever on March 10, 2017, 04:00:37 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 10, 2017, 03:46:32 AM

Quote from: ebliever on March 10, 2017, 03:42:57 AM

That's it? Seriously?

I'm not against moderately larger blocks (though I am more concerned than some about blockchain bloat); I wish core had pushed out a blocksize increase some time ago and then kept working on segwit and LN, etc., without skipping a beat. But you are not going to reach anything like mass adoption or meet the needs of bitcoin-friendly merchants with larger blocks in an era in which Moore's Law has long since ended.

I'm not against layered solutions, off-chain, etc... as long as the market can decide for itself, not have it forced down our throats.

Core could have increased the blocksize long ago and chose not to. imo, they thought they could control and dictate their roadmap.

in any event, here we are.

How is core forcing anything down our throat if, for example, LN implementations become available? I can still pay the miner fee and do my TX on-chain. It's not like the bitcoin network is going to know who is who and blacklist anyone from making on-chain TX. Core is simply working on making LN available.

They are forcing it down our throat demonstrably by sticking with a 1mb block limit. They are using what originally was an anti-spam measure to literally force transactions off chain at the benefit of themselves and blockstream, and the detriment of everyone else.