How about we break the cycle of mudflinging and insults - against both sides - and go back to searching for a compromise solution.
I proposed one today after days of research and refinement and weeks of toying with the idea. I would like some rational feedback:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1844059.0The infighting and mudflinging is hurting all of us.
The Bitcoin blocksize debate is giving altcoins their golden opportunity to break Bitcoin's dominance, primarily because several extreme ideological factions are completely unwilling to compromise with the opposing side, and now frequently promote drastic threats against the other side.
1. No Blocksize increases: Those favoring no blocksize increases at all are in the extreme minority. Refusing to compromise may result in even bigger blocks than would be possible by compromising, after significant damage from a contentious hardfork. Refusing to compromise hurts all Bitcoin holders, miners, users, and developers.
I welcome any rational feedback. Thanks.
Your proposal is based on the tacit assumption that increasing the block size is necessary and valuable which is based on the tacitly held assumption that increasing the tps solve a significant problem. These assumptions are not based on any accepted economic theory, they are simply perpetuated by people that don't understand the foundation for reason.
The people that are in favor of either very slow scaling or none at all are the ones that are most educated and read on related economic theory. They are the one's quoting peer reviewed papers.
That there is a whole faction of people trying to steer bitcoin in a certain direction does not at all give validity to their argument and there is no reason at all to compromise with such irrational behavior. The system was clearly designed to resist tyranny of the majority.
Core's resistance to hasty scaling and any significant change is simply an extension of Satoshi's designed of a system that cannot be usurped by an ignorant impatient uneducated mob.