You can't have it both ways

[johnyj]

Yes, you can't have both global clearing system and super fast payment system in the same network

The banks' global clearing system do 1tpd (1 transaction per day) between two member bank, and they don't have any problem with that

Fast payment system like visa or paypal can do thousands of transactions per second but they are just like exchanges, all transactions happens between the user accounts, in fact the money clearing behind that takes almost 30 days

Bitcoin is already the fastest clearing system in the world

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

The sidechains business model does not, in any way, suffer from larger blocks. It is more likely it would benefit them so your Blockstream paranoia is just that, FUD. 

We will see. It looks like we are getting bigger blocks in the new year, whether its XT or Core - doesn't matter. I imagine that without upward price pressure on transactions  the sidechain adoption curve will flatten significantly. But it will happen, and I'm sure it will be successful at offering an alternative model for low value/high frequency transactions - but not at the expense of those who choose to transact  directly on the chain.

[Tstar]

what the hell is this XT ..i guess this is happening because there is no professional team in bitcoin community ?
and people dont know anything .

[TinEye]

well many, i think don't want the community split and don't care about xt core or Qt like it was before, i'm one of those people, this debates is causing more demage than anything else, to bitcoin
at this point i'm pro anything, just resolve this quickly

what the hell is this XT ..i guess this is happening because there is no professional team in bitcoin community ?
and people dont know anything .

it's the version of Core with the bigger block, should allow more transaction volume, if this will ever be true

[dachnik]

we all just want agreement

Pretty much this.
Hopefully there can be some kind of compromise reached in the next few months. If not hopefully one wins & the other dies so we can continue on the currently crumbling road that leads to the moon. 

The only middleground I can currently think of would be to gradually adjust max blocksize based on the avarage network load. Just like mining difficulty is readjusted every two weeks, the same could be done for max blocksize?

It's a bit more complex than that.

If there is an economic incentive for miners to agree on a bigger block size (to include more transactions with fees, for example), they will have little to no consideration for the ability of the non-mining full nodes to keep up with the load, as those are not explicitly incentivized to operate in the current setup.

Having a static hard cap on block size (reflecting network's ability to sustain itself within its current size) is the only measure that non-mining full nodes have in order to counter potential misbehaviors by the miners. If the hard limit is chosen way higher than current technological capabilities and reached prematurely it may greatly reduce the amount of nodes participating in consensus and therefore destroy the decentralization premise that Bitcoin is standing on.