It still is surrounded by loads of controversy. First things first, what's the ideal block size increase? We're agreeing on the 16 MB limit, but stompix wants it to double on every halving. Another one might think 16 MB is still very small. I can already predict that the hardfork will end up just like Bitcoin Cash; uncertainty on the ideal adjustment will encourage people to stick with the tested, conservative 4 MB.
Just to make things clear!
Stompix himself, in his great wisdom wanted the block doubling since before the last having, and when I said doubling I meant that it would have been already doubled by now and we would be looking in the future for another one, so 4MB or a maximum theoretically size of 16.
So I never advocated for a sudden increase of xxx1000 times now, I said it's possible and all the technical mumbo jumbo about the capacity that would restrain it is bs , but I never was that radical in it!
Things like:
Also, increasing the size of the block makes this attack worse, than it currently is:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140078.msg1491085#msg1491085The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies,[b] or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices[/b].
Just a tiny reminder this is no longer 2013, and a server 2Gbit/s
guaranteed line is 99$ per month.
So how about we talk in 2024 prices and capacities, not a decade ago things, deal

But again this is turning funny, first we had no need for bigger blocks as bigger blocks are empty over at bch and bsv, then we have 100GB blocks of full transactions because...
majik..., I swear, and I mentioned a hundred times already why can't you guys be constant on your scenarios?