A majority of Core Devs wants ~133MB block sizes, that is the plan. The only difference is the order. Doing things in the right order is important because

Nakamoto consensus remains and the immutable blockchain has remained resilient against multiple political coups. The majority of users, miners and developers understand that changes must have technical merit to risk first.

That was just one example. Here is another example:

Half a billion users making 20 tx a day and 10k micro transactions a day(per minute bandwidth charges, per page ad free internet charges to pay certain content providers) and millions of Oracles/covenants/DAPPs/IOT devices all making txs every day.

With payment channels this is possible. Without It is just silly and unforeseeable.  

In the beginning there was only darkness, then Satoshi said to Nakamoto "do we have consensus?" and then there was light.

Americans (I guess you are also exhibiting the same pattern even if you are a Canadian) always blow my mind. They are burning fuel by the gallons, they can buy all types of junk for hundreds or thousands of dollars, they've been born in such abundance and quality of life that they can afford to say things like "ohh fuck bloat, I'll just buy a hard disk that costs 300$" (which is the wage of a developing nation worker) and the next minute they'll be saying things like "I don't want to pay 1-2-5 cents in fees" or they'll be pushing for the massive destruction of value, such as in the case of a contentious hard fork, saying that this will somehow lift some obstacle and increase their ...value. It's plain stupidity.

Only people who are taking abundance for granted can be pushing for situations where the destruction of value can be promoted as "solution" to issues that they are lucky enough to don't even have to care about, like the 2-3-5 cents in fees.

You know, there are very poor countries where even the 2-3-5 cents are actually money that one can do something in their life, like buy something to eat. I would respect those if they actually complained. But you know why they would not complain? Because they would understand that all alternative payment systems are asking them not 2-3-5 cents, but 100 times that. The cost to transfer around 200$ over the globe, through a bank wire, a western union transfer or paypal is in the tens of dollars, if you include all fees and commissions.

Last, but not least, there are countries, in which people suffer from fluctuating currency rates and who appreciate Bitcoin's store of value characteristics as their national currency slides downwards. And then there are all those who already enjoy the privilege of being in a country with stable or strong currency and who are like "fuck that, let's now destroy bitcoin's value for the lolz through a hardfork... let's fork the currency because, well... I don't like core devs".

I know I haven't directly addressed the point about the ...video and the fees, but the answer is there, between the lines.

Blocks were full for 3 days and the only thing that happened is fees went for 3 pennies to 7 -10 pennies... during an attack..
It appears that the attack may have restarted after a couple days rest.
 
Are you suggesting you care more about short term profit rather than longterm health?

There are no high fees in bitcoin.

How soon you forget... I remember paying 6-8 pennies in tx fees in early 2013 before v0.8.2

That means the tx fees have gone from dust to 8 pennies to 2 pennies , back up to 8 pennies and will eventually drop back to 2-3 pennies with payment channels.

FTFU - Coinbase said they were going to test XT...

but you gotta admit that AlexGr just provided very good evidence why we shouldn't just rush into some kind of a blind blocksize limit increase when such blocksize limit increase does not seem to be at all necessary (except to shut up a bunch of loud ass "sky is falling" whiners).  

In spite of this supposed block size limit crisis that has been shouted about for more than a year (and more vocal in the past 6 months and even more vocal in the past couple of months - repeated shouts), there is no real evidence of a crisis and bitcoin has been doing pretty well in staving off a lot of nonsense spamming and still processing valuable transactions in a timely manner for low to no fees.

You are describing a much different Lightning network than core envisions. We want normal users to run lightning hubs and share fees with miners to incentivize them to run full nodes. We do not want companies like blockstream, coinbase, bitpay to control payment channels. Lightning network is supposed to be p2p where any average user can easily participate.

Are you suggesting that you don't want to increase full node diversity and count?

Hard drive space isn't cheap for VPN's, which is what many are being driven to by the amount of bandwidth their full nodes are consuming from home connections. Many ISP's are introducing bandwidth softcaps , so the choice for users is run a full node or watch netflix. This is already a limitation that some users are being forced to make right now at 1 MB limit, many more will be forced to make this tradeoff at 2MB limits.

Here is an example of a Really Inexpensive VPN-
For their cheap , non ssd VPN's the Hard drive space isn't that cheap ... and the bigger issue is the cost of RAM which one needs around 2GB now to run a full node or 20 USD a month. If we keep pushing the blocksize limit higher than the hard disk, CPU, and ram requirements will also grow requiring a 30 usd a month or 40 usd month VPN.

There is a reason that Core introduced some new features in 0.12.0 that allow mempool and traffic limiting... it is both to prepare for increasing the blocksize limit and because currently some nodes are having issues from crashing even with a "small" limit of 1MB.

He forgot the bloat part which is achieved with less cost when the network has ample capacity.

If normal use, is, say, 500-700kb and the rest is spam that goes in for cheap, then instead of a spammer filling 300-500kb of spam for free/near free, he gets to increase that to 1300-1500, which is 3-4x.

Isn't there a cryptographic attack that makes it possible to guess a private key if you have access to half of it? I'm sure it says somewhere that a private key can be considered compromised if an attacker gets a proportion of it. If an attacker gets hold of the half key in your ass you lose, or if a corrupt bank clerk gets the half in the bank vault you also lose.

The simple fact is that it's easier to disrupt a network that is already running close to capacity than one that has more excess capacity. That should be intuitively obvious to anyone without a mental handicap.

Dwugz and kiddy pr0nz, yes. For everything else, there's MasterCard.

>but not exactly professional...
If it was, it wouldn't be Bitcoin, n00by n00b.

Dear miners,

I am a bitcoin investor, speculator, end user. I am asking you, no i am begging you, JUST DO IT!

I know you do not want to offend anyone or step on some toes; you want to make sure that when you put the 2MB limit in place it is because we have reached "consensus" on the issue. I BEG YOU, do not delay any longer, assert your power! do not wait for somthing that may never happen, do not let a dev believe they know better than you, or have more power than you, they don't, show them! let them feel the wrath of your hashes, Command their respect!

Put in place the 2MB limit TODAY, without their "approval". Put out some code of your own, gather >51% hashing power, and FORK us to the next level! if this offends the some poeple / core devs and they rage quit, GOOD! we dont want them trying to control bitcoin, it is not for them to control, bitcoin is OURS not theirs! amass 51% and take control!

As an investor / speculator, I promise you, if you can demonstrate that bitcoin's destiny isn't in the hands of any one group, but requires vast amounts of power to sway one way or the other,and that no amount of FUD can stop you/us; I will value bitcoin much more.

Time is now, do not delay, own the day!