Quote from: Killerpotleaf on April 05, 2017, 02:28:31 AM

Quote from: jofus on April 05, 2017, 02:18:36 AM

Quote from: Killerpotleaf on April 05, 2017, 01:36:39 AM

Quote from: arklan on April 05, 2017, 01:25:40 AM

Quote from: Killerpotleaf on April 04, 2017, 11:45:34 PM

Quote from: york780 on April 04, 2017, 03:29:26 PM

Yup. I was wrong. SegWit has cut a deal with BU. We are going to fork. RIP.

everyone hates Segwit2mb

yet there's what, 30% signaling for it?

or am i mistaken?

I assumed what york meant when he said SegWit has cut a deal with BU was the Segwit SF + 2MB HF (Segwit2MB) being proposed. this will produce a Effective 8MB block weight.

everyone hates it.

20MB everyone hates it.
8MB everyone hates it.
BIP101 everyone hates it.
2MB HF everyone hates it.
Segwit everyone hates it.
BU everyone hates it.
UASF everyone hates it.
Segwit2MB everyone hates it.

Why has no one suggested lowering the block size?? Maybe that one will get unanimous support.

Luke did sugest that

guess what... EVERYONE HATES IT! Cheesy

Lowering the blocksize limit is nearly as dumb as raising the blocksize limit (and maybe even more dumber).

Even if a smaller blocksize limit could be preferable, there is a certain amount of risk that comes with any change, even if the change happens to be preferable.