Quote from: bones261 on December 24, 2017, 04:29:55 PM

Quote from: itod on December 24, 2017, 04:20:30 PM

Quote from: BayAreaCoins on December 24, 2017, 02:36:42 PM

Quote from: fabiorem on December 24, 2017, 02:35:00 PM

I'm all for a block size increase to 2mb. I just think that 8mb, as proposed by BCash, is too much, and will create more problems in the future, such as centralized nodes.

I agree... start slow and move up.

Just do something.

Amazing how people can't see the obvious. 2MB blocks, 8MB, 64MB, whatever you want MB is not the solution. And 8MB blocks by BCash has low fees for simple reason absolutely nobody is using it. You can put whatever cap you want sooner or latter fees are going to again get up as adoption spreads, and we are not even at the beginning of real adoption, meaning adoption at the Twitter or Facebook users number levels. Block size increase will only lead to many people not being able to run a node and solve nothing. The only solution is LN, true solution without any side effects. Unlimited number of transactions, 0 fees, period. There is no point of making Bitcoin more centralized when LN are just around a corner. Let's first try and see how it works before we hard-fork to bigger block-size forever.

The BCH team is working on getting rid of the blocksize limitation altogether. So If you want to backup all of you photos, the BCH chain will be a great place to do it. Only people with servers that cost 20K USD to setup will be able to run a node. Craig Wright believes only mining nodes matter. Roll Eyes

I'm not sure a fee market can be established with unlimited blocks. Cheesy

Craig Wright is a known puppet of three-letter-agencies. Low-level con-artist. I'm not surprised he states that only mining nodes matter, it only shows how incompetent he is.