Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 05, 2017, 01:30:23 AM

Quote from: arklan on April 04, 2017, 10:31:00 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 01, 2017, 03:23:14 PM

Quote from: ImHash on April 01, 2017, 01:57:02 PM

So BU is the answer? where only a big mining farm owning almost half the hash power wants to increase the block size as long as there are transactions in the mempool, but would they just and only change the blocksize without changing anything else?

It doesn't necessarily have to be the miners in charge, but it shouldn't be developers either.

Quote

to remove long term moral hazard, core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands.

- Jeff Garzik

Quote

implement a permanent block size solution once and for all, that will keep the block size limit above market demand. There are several options, such as Stephen Pairs flexcap proposal.

- Olivier Janssens

yup. should have been done that way from day -1. never should have released the software without it. now we'll never even get the consensus needed to implement this, because it would still be a fork.

Honestly I feel this "HF are bad" stuff is propaganda. Other cryptos have done hard forks where everyone agrees and knows whats going on and there hasn't been any fall out afaik....

but that's the point. we don't HAVE consensus. everyone doesn't agree. and they never WILL. therefore, any fork, under such a case as we have, will result in chaos.