Quote from: casparthefriendly on January 19, 2018, 05:56:44 PM

YESS!! Even in the Lightning Network Whitepaper they were looking for a mininum of 133mb block size and never imagine there would be SOO much resistance to a gradual increase in block size.

No. That was to accommodate billions of users, not millions. Bitcoin only has millions of users right now.

Quote from: casparthefriendly on January 19, 2018, 05:56:44 PM

Yes the damn' blocksize needs to be MUCH larger to bring down these transactions fees which are discouraging even wider usage (and don't give me, like this one jerk on Reddit did, the argument that transactions aren't high)

Lightning will let us do 10's of millions of transactions per second with the 4MB block weight Bitcoin has right now. And it was only increased to 4MB less than 6 months ago. That's going to be enough for now.

Hard forks need to be planned very carefully, there's a whole lot more to consider than just the block weight. There are so many changes that could or should be made, and hard forks are so delicate that those changes should be taken with exceptional care, otherwise we may invite chaos to destroy Bitcoin's reputation (and value). I think we can all agree that stable limited utility and slow consensus building towards a sensibly planned hard fork is much better than the chaos of big blocks fork-of-the-month shouting matches.