Quote from: TechPriest on September 26, 2017, 02:47:41 PM

Quote from: ChromaticStar on September 26, 2017, 01:45:43 PM

I oppose it mostly on philisophical grounds that I do understand. I suppose you understand all the technical aspects. So tell us please, why should we all believe 2x is going to be the best road forword?

First point: I don't understand ALL technical aspects
Second point: I don't think that is the best way, but it wouldn't do any real harm. Also, in future (especially for Lightning) we will be needed in bigger blocks.

From my another post :

Quote

Also, as i calculate Lightning network needed big blocks. There 7 billion of souls on our planet. If everyone will close 2 Lightning channels per year (this number can be less or more, i took average) so we have - 14 billion of transaction. Average number of trasnaction per block now is about 2 thousands. So, per year we have 51840 blocks. 51840*2000 = 103 680 000 transactions. It's not enough as you can see.

Quote from: ChromaticStar on September 26, 2017, 01:45:43 PM

Make sure you address all the reasons why Core is opposed to it, they're the ones who really know what they're doing.

Sorry, but i can't agree with this. Who tell you that they really know what they do? For example, Luke in his twitter wrote that high fees for btc is normal. (https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6ereib/these_fees_are_unacceptable/dicq95v/)

Quote

Bitcoin-user complaints about 85$ transaction fee. Core developer Luke-jr responds: "Then use fiat."

Do you think it is good answer for Bitcoin developer, BITCOIN, who tries to become new financial system? For example, i don't think so.
Also, here is interesting article. Author shows very interesting opinion: http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/08/26/whos-your-crypto-buddy/

In fiat system with 3d party you must to believe and trust someone. Bitcoin is network without trust (between peers) so you must verificate and check any kind of information and it doesn't matter who tells it to you: me, or core dev, or someone else.

I heard that remark a while ago. Luke may not be on the same level as many of the other Core devs. At the very least, that remark was made when people should have been finding cheaper transactions due to scaling limitations. That being said, scaling solutions are being undertaken, and if lightning network with Segwit isn't enough, then 2X can be considered. Several of the Core devs have made it very clear that there is much more to 2X than just a change in the block size. A change in the block size has much larger dynamic implications which can not be predicted. Once 7 billion people are using BTC, trying to transact and close lightning network channels, 2X or 3X or nX can be considered, but why take chances on something that were not ready for? Eric Lombrozo has made comments on 2X that you might want to consider here:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-core-developer-eric-lombrozo-on-misunderstandings-in-block-size-debate-1455817458/