Because scalability and TPS are not synonymous metrics. Scalability includes a whole bunch of other factors, throughput is only one. Increasing the blocksize only improves 1 factor: the throughput (i.e. TPS). And it does so at the expense of all other factors: hence, does not constitute a scaling solution

If you think that it is 'one line of code' then you really don't know what you're talking about. Take a look at how many lines of code Gavin's BIP has and then come here. A 2 MB block size limit is not safe on its own. If it were, then Classic would have not added those limitations.

Quick and short list:

• Network has practically no hard fork experience.
• 2 MB block size limit is unsafe due to quadratic validation time - Gavin's BIP for Classic adds additional limitations to prevent this.
• Does not improve scalability at all.
• Does not come with any benefits besides increased TPS either.

This has all been discussed over and over in various places. This is why Segwit is the next step, it will make validation time linear among other things. I can't say whether and when a potential block size increase is going to come after Segwit.

No, because one way or another, it's going up. There is no argument to be had, except the same tired old "b-b-but main chain 2MB" stuff. Knock yourself out, but I'm not interested

Segwit is implemented and has been recently merged for the upcoming version. Check the Github page and the commits. However, the exact details of activation have not been set yet.

Dollars? eBay? What sort of Bitcoiner is this? Oh right, the sort that wants to start the 1,0001st failed attempt at a hard fork dev team coup

Just need a winged pegasus to fly on while I'm blockchainin', and I'm good to go!

just to clarify.. although the majority of hashpower is in china.. the POOL is not.
a simply laymans explanation is that ASIC miners do not have a hard drive.. they dont hold the blockchain. so them being behind the Chinese firewall means nothing..
their POOL which does have the blockchain, does the main job of communicating the hashes between miners, and communicates solved blocks to the world is outside the firewall. so in short the firewall is not a problem or something to be considered a reason why pools are saying/doing anything

What are "the Chinese" censoring?

Umm. . Do you need to be reminded what firewalls implemented by governments are used for  . .


Uh, you mean the everyday typical RAM amount of 80GB? Right

Unfortunately, Bitcoin Classic has not been updated to support CSV and BIP9 yet. Consequently, it will be inadvisable to mine with it after the CSV fork activates. If you try, you will probably have any blocks that you mine get orphaned. This will make other p2pool users unhappy, as you will basically be freeloading off the others in the pool. So please don't.

You can still vote for the Classic BIP109 2 MB hardfork without running Classic. You can do so quite easily in p2pool by editing the source code to bitwise OR the block version with 0x30000000. I will be doing this myself soon. Something like this should work:

    version=max(self.current_work.value['version'] | 0x30000000, 0x30000000),

If the BIP109 vote exceeds about 10-15% of the network hashrate, or if a large miner (e.g. Bitfury or Bitmain) asks me to, I will take a week and merge in CSV, BIP9, and whatever else needs merging into Classic, if Gavin and Zander haven't beaten me to it. In the mean time, I will keep voting for BIP109 but using Core, similar to what f2pool does.