Quote from: Foxpup on July 11, 2017, 06:45:31 AM

Quote from: Lauda on July 11, 2017, 06:19:22 AM

The idea to force blocks bigger than 1 MB is inherently flawed.

Not exactly. There's more to it than that. They can't use the hardfork bit because they're trying to trick lite clients into following their fork, thus causing maximum disruption (they don't seem to have any other goal). In that respect, forcing >1MB blocks is a very good idea, or it would be if their code actually produced >1MB blocks. The inherent flaw is that it actually doesn't with the default settings (even if the mempool has more than 1MB of transactions), with the result that all their miners stopped dead as soon as the fork activated, and it took over a day for anyone to figure out what the problem was (and the so-called developers spent most of that time denying that there was any problem at all and insulting anyone who tried to point it out).

It's the typical level of incompetence we've all come to expect from these clowns.

There may be a acceptable goal of attempting to lock everyone into the 2mb agreement and the hardfork at a certain time frame - however, a strange part would be that smaller blocks would not be accepted and maybe that they are attempting the lock in with a kind of stealth tactics rather just transparently asserting that everyone is going to be locked in after a certain passage of time.

They likely don't want to be transparent because they are trying to cause a locking in that people likely are reluctant to agree to it (even though they would be asserting that everyone already agreed to be locked into the hardfork and the 2mb limit upgrade by the NY agreement and by running the software..