So I guess you have already mentioned the "wrong people". Well I think there's actually no wrong or right there. If a bigger community wants to reach a consensus on something there must be compromises on every front or else there'll be situations like the BTC/BCH hard fork which causes lots of hate, grudge and stalemate situations. But of course humans are difficult animals and this kind of compromising consensus is hard to achieve so then comes the beauty of this FREE SOURCE stuff - everyone can do/fork their own thing and "nature" tests it if it's fit enough to survive in the long run.

So back to blocks .. I'd watch the whole picture, iterate and maybe go to the golden middle road. Regarding block size maybe there could be a solution somewhere in the middle? Perhaps something like dynamic block size which automatically increases the block size when the current one is say about 80-90% full and vice versa when blocks get empy it decreases the block size accordingly. For example 1MB gets 90% full then it's increased to 2MB and when 2MB is 90% full it's increased to 4MB etc. and when the traffic slows down and blocks get empty the code decreases the blocks first to 2MB and finally back to 1MB if it's possible. This way the code decides and people don't have to argue about it and developers could concentrate on BTCs privacy/anonymity "flaw". Dynamic block size offers small blocks as the optimum solution and also bigger blocks when needed. Bigger blocks are needed especially during the "rush hour" like late 2017 and early 2018.

But this thread is also about consipracy theory regarding bitcoin and I have something to add in my next post.

I'm a newbie to crypto and having skin in the game from late 2017 and fucked up all the way down where we are today if fiat prices matter (you can become rich by speculating but much richer by worldwide adoption). So I've had to do a lot of research from bitcoins and other coins history because I verify I don't trust. It seems that this crypto space, especially bitcoin space, have turned to a battle ground of different belief systems which accuses each other with various fictions and facts. I rather stick to facts what has actually happened and don't want to push a narrative that "This is right because I believe so".

I've learned to a degree that I know that the chaos around any bitcoin related topics is directly or indirectly caused by the privite central banksters who have felt that this crypto thing might threaten their worldwide ponzi scheme of debt-based fiat currencies which are sold to governments with great profits impoverishing the whole world. These banksters have hired social media warriors to wreak havoc among crypto communities because "divide and conquer" still works very efficiently today and distracts people from the real issues and tries to prevent postive forward going development. The ones who attack others the most show only their more mentally primitive state of mind.

In this topic I see childish arguments that go in the level of "my toy is better than yours because my toy is better" and then I see more mature arguments which try to discuss the topic from various viewpoints. There might be some hired chaos infilcters here or just useful idiots promoting stuff that actually hurts their coin. I don't have to call any names here because everyone knows themselves quite clearly how established they really are with their arguments.

RULE NUMBER ONE IN CRYPTO:
- If you make a new coin give it a fixed in stone maximum supply (e.g. 21 million) aka digital scarcity.
RULE NUMBER TWO IN CRYPTO:
- Do not break the the first rule.
RULE NUMBER THREE IN CRYPTO:
- If you break the first rule your coin will be fucked up and its value will go to zero with 100% certainty. Only banks are so stupid that they inflate their fiat currencies to oblivion.

So regarding Sprouts:
- Give it a fixed in stone maximum supply. People can stake their current coins until the maximum supply is reached. After that the free markets will decide the value of one Sprouts.
- Plus code a Linux wallet!