With that said, the blocksize change isn't as "difficult" as many would make it sound, at least not the forking part of it, actually, it's probably easier now than before in that regard, probably 95% or so of blocks are found but known pools, so some coordination between core, pools, exchanges and major wallets operators is not impossible, it's pretty doable and could be done slowly, and safely.
But then again, it's too much work that nobody seems to be interested in just yet, and when I say nobody I mean somebody whose words matter (not the bunch of us arguing on this topic
), but say Antpool, Foundry, Binance, Coinbase, Trezzor and CMC decided they wanted to increase blocksize, do you think core would oppose them? if they did, do you think they can actually stop them from forking the network and keeping the longest chain and BTC ticker on all major exchanges and wallets? Would Core want to stay obsolete with a client nobody who matters uses it? how long would it take before all other nodes come to realize that they are stuck on an old obsolete blockchain that nobody mines on?
It's true that if code devs took the initiative and started to lobby for bigger blocks -- it would be a lot smoother and easier to happen than if Binance stated that, but again, that won't be easy, how long it took Taproot to activate? proposed around 2018? merged in 2020? activated near the end of 2021? so 3-4 years for a soft fork to take place, took a lot of lobbying and patience, doing a controversial hard fork is gong to be a lot more difficult.
But then again, it's too much work that nobody seems to be interested in just yet, and when I say nobody I mean somebody whose words matter (not the bunch of us arguing on this topic
), but say Antpool, Foundry, Binance, Coinbase, Trezzor and CMC decided they wanted to increase blocksize, do you think core would oppose them? if they did, do you think they can actually stop them from forking the network and keeping the longest chain and BTC ticker on all major exchanges and wallets? Would Core want to stay obsolete with a client nobody who matters uses it? how long would it take before all other nodes come to realize that they are stuck on an old obsolete blockchain that nobody mines on?It's true that if code devs took the initiative and started to lobby for bigger blocks -- it would be a lot smoother and easier to happen than if Binance stated that, but again, that won't be easy, how long it took Taproot to activate? proposed around 2018? merged in 2020? activated near the end of 2021? so 3-4 years for a soft fork to take place, took a lot of lobbying and patience, doing a controversial hard fork is gong to be a lot more difficult.
you do realsie in late 2016 core used the open consensus of different brands to vote on their plan. they only got 45% by the following summer..
core devs and their sponsors(NYA) then pushed and mandated the change in under 2 months to get an unnatural 100%
its not difficult for core nor something they cant do. they can easily do it and it wont destroy the network. but they CHOOSE not to, not due to security concerns but dev politics and sponsorship deal reasons
Maybe it's possible the core devs spoke to major pools about a block size increase and pools denied their request? have you tried contacting these major pools and asked if they would be interested in raising the size to 12MB? why is it always core devs to blame?
its core devs that are to blame because bitcoin is not some self writing AI code. guess who has been the sole control beneficiary of code control and decision making of bitcoins roadmap for many yearsmining pools dont write the code, nor propose different options. they just collate transactions in the format defined by cores code..
please learn who wrote the code then you will understand who is to blame