Quote from: zimmah on March 27, 2017, 12:42:08 PM

No matter which side ends up winning, a conclusion to this debate would be good for bitcoin either way.

Personally I'd prefer it if BU wins though, because I want bitcoin to remain decentralized.

I think you have chosen the wrong side for decentralization lol.

BU is a centralized company trying to do a hostile takeover of Bitcoin. Core are a bunch of volunteer developers (some of whom are paid by MIT and Blockstream) but any developer can volunteer to work for core and help make Bitcoin better. BU want in install a president of Bitcoin, not all the BU code they release is reviewed, not all the code they release if visible for anyone to see, and all developers are paid employees. So if BU ever manages to take over the Bitcoin chain, Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin, might as well use Visa.

BU's bigger blocks can also mean smaller blocks, the miners decide on the blocksize, so in theory they could vote for smaller blocks and thus higher fees. The other issue with larger block is the larger the block the more decentralized the miners become. If the blocksize went much larger quickly only data centres would be able to mine as no one else would have the bandwidth or storage needed. If the blocksize were to hit 4mb in the next year or 2 then the whole of Austrialia and Africa would be unable to process the data needed to mine due to bandwidth. So that is 2 continents without any possible mining.