[...]
I am not sure how fruitful it is to remember who said what in terms of the blocksize limitation wars, even though surely from time to time it does come in handy to see those kinds of historical stances that various people/businesses took.
I am pretty sure that jbreher was a bcasher and then pretty much got stuck in the Bcash SV camp, and surely some of that makes little sense because who the fuck would consider that any forkening of Bcash that was promoted/funded by Wright/Ayers would have any semblance of legitimacy but jbreher frequently proclaimed that peeps could still support BcashSV without having to agree with the various claims of Wright et al.
I am pretty sure that jbreher was supporting all of the BIG blocker nonsense from the start - back to late 2015 when Gavin would spout out the various talking points about a need for a path forward and doing all the stuffs on layer one.. so there seems to have been a time in which segwit was proposed and so many of them thought that it was a decent compromise - even Gavin, but then the code was written in early 2016 and then went on testnet and seems that once the segwit code went into its ready to be merged stage then a bunch of the dweebs started to proclaim that segwit was not good any longer, and that would have been around the time of the NYA.. so yeah, I cannot remember jbreher deviating from any of those BIGblocker party line talking points.. including considering the NYA to be a great compromise. If you recall, then vast majority of the strong vocal BIG blocker dweebs did not even care that much about the technical aspects of the big blocker nonsense, but instead they were largely trying to merely change BTC governance to make it easier to change bitcoin however the fuck .. majority rule baloney stuff like that.
I believe/remember that jbreher had done some mathematical calculation that showed that, at the current (small block) transaction rate (transactions per second—tps) it would take several decades for the entire world population to own BTC on-chain. I think it was a simple division operation, dividing the world population by Bitcoin's transaction rate, to compute the time needed to get the entire population on Bitcoin's blockchain.
Something like this:
Population size: 8 billion (approx.)
Bitcoin transaction rate: 7 tps (best-case value, approx.)
Total time for the entire world to become BTC owners: 8,000,000,000 / 7 = 1,142,857,142 seconds = 13,228 days =
36 years!Note that the above result allocates only one (1) on-chain Bitcoin transaction per person, when in practice more than one transaction would be needed to make use of the owned BTC, thus increasing the above time estimate to the order of hundreds of years.
So, according to the above result, jbreher reasoned that Bitcoin's block size, and subsequent transaction rate, is simply not enough to cater for the future needs of the entire world population in a practical sense. I think that was (still is?) his motivation for supporting big blocks.
Perhaps jbreher can chime in and confirm or correct the above.
My opinion on this matter, is that Bitcoin is not a static entity and is open to changes, as and when they are needed. When the time comes for changes relating to the block size (or any other modifications or improvements to the code), they will be adopted in a structured, orderly manner, based on rigorous and thorough testing, and via a worldwide consensus mechanism. The problem with BCH (a.k.a. Bcash) and BSV is that they are governed by arrogant, selfish, toxic individuals that effectively attempted to take control of Bitcoin for their own, insidious, malevolent motives. To that, the community has clearly objected, as reflected by the subsequent failure of these attempts, and indicated by the current value of these forked coins, as compared to BTC.
When the time comes, and the need arises, the Bitcoin ecosystem will be adapted and improved as necessary, and in different ways (via on- and off-chain solutions). That is how i see it. I see the BCH/BSV forks as malevolent actions aiming to take control of the code base. And they have failed miserably.