Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too

[bitcoinmasterlord]

Changetip is a sidechain? Is this some intelligence displyed by the antiXT-er s? When you dont even know technicality you should stick to polictic ie. Mike is an evil person, and core devs are good guys
Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain

So it's a offchain solution? What's the difference it just proves that everything doesn't have to be on the blockchain.
There is no need to bloat the chain.

It's a difference creating a service that is used by users voluntarely instead forcing them to another service by making the original one unuseable or too expensive.

[1715090001]

1715090001

[1715090001]

1715090001

[1715090001]

1715090001

[bitcoinmasterlord]

Oh... didn't see such list yet. Till now i thought the factions are relatively averaged strong but the list looks like there is no real chance that bitcoin core will get the 8mb blocks.

[slaveforanunnak1]

Oh... didn't see such list yet. Till now i thought the factions are relatively averaged strong but the list looks like there is no real chance that bitcoin core will get the 8mb blocks.

Thats good! Core should fork to a 2 or a 4mb block if the mempool is getting really close to full and i don't mean full like this:

[bitcoinmasterlord]

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

• XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
• The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
• The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to a max of $0.50 USD, omg so much and then only...) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.




Edited for clarification and to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin".
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--


Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic.

I think you miss something. We don't want to devalue mining by lowering fees, we wan't to keep the fees the way they are now.

What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services?

Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so.

And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees.

Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin.

So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted.

I can't believe that bitcoiners go around screaming after control of their own currency. Only a certain amount of transactions, the miners need to earn more money.

Right... as if the mining corporations doesn't earn enough.

[slaveforanunnak1]

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

• XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
• The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
• The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to a max of $0.50 USD, omg so much and then only...) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.




Edited for clarification and to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin".
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--


Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic.

I think you miss something. We don't want to devalue mining by lowering fees, we wan't to keep the fees the way they are now.

What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services?

Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so.

And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees.

Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin.

So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted.

I can't believe that bitcoiners go around screaming after control of their own currency. Only a certain amount of transactions, the miners need to earn more money.

Right... as if the mining corporations doesn't earn enough.

READ THIS!
http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

[bitcoinmasterlord]

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

• XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
• The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
• The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.

Oh did you actually?

And did you check the source of material that you read?

Cause your conclusion can be drawn blindly by just reading the titles of the threads in this section..... Which should only take you 5mins. I feel bad that you wasted several weeks for the same result

I think hodedowe's conclusion pretty much nailed it on the head. You on the other hand are a shameless xt shill, begone to the alts board!

Says the practically new account. Sure, you are more legit than meono...

I agree... when we would have started with bitcoin to pay that kind of fee then we could have stayed at paypal too.

Ridiculous how some bitcoiners see things.

[slaveforanunnak1]

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

• XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
• The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
• The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.

Oh did you actually?

And did you check the source of material that you read?

Cause your conclusion can be drawn blindly by just reading the titles of the threads in this section..... Which should only take you 5mins. I feel bad that you wasted several weeks for the same result

I think hodedowe's conclusion pretty much nailed it on the head. You on the other hand are a shameless xt shill, begone to the alts board!

Says the practically new account. Sure, you are more legit than meono...

I agree... when we would have started with bitcoin to pay that kind of fee then we could have stayed at paypal too.

Ridiculous how some bitcoiners see things.

you people are gross.

[valiz]

What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services?

Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so.

And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees.

Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin.

So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted.

BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin!

Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization!

You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing.

[slaveforanunnak1]

What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services?

Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so.

And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees.

Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin.

So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted.

BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin!

Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization!

You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing.

EXACTLY! speaking of... check dow! it's taking a huge shit! down almost 450 pts.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

core developers says that will increase the blocksize to 2mb asap. I think is not necessary to go bigger atm. The evolution never need a shock to be successful.

Ok, and what will you do when amazon suddenly offers bitcoin and a huge amount of new users flow in? You would kill the bitcoin adoption because all users would have a terrible user experience.

The only way for bitcoin to succeed is being free of restrictions.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

this action is not anarchy is not even democracy is clear facism

At this point i can't take you serious anymore. You act like hearn and gavin have any might to destroy bitcoin. That's plain stupid.

I agree that it is immature how gavin tried to extort everyone but there are no xt fans that want any of the other shit hearn has in his mind.

So i really don't have a clue what goes on in your head.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

i think bitcoin need not a fork, not an increase of block but a vote decentralized system based in blockchain for all the users who want to take part and based in blockchain.

Sure... and everyone with enough coins will buy himself votes. Or how do you imagine that these votes could go on only slightly correct?

nice move to suicide.. . They are lunatics or they have gain so much money that they dont care.. I dont know why they cant see the storm coming..

Or maybe... just maybe you are not the clever one here.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

yeah and for that crap argument is better to give all the power for developing bitcoin to one person. One man to rule a p2p system.. Wake up! Are you blind?

Now i know what you fear. And yes, you are right. The thing is... nearly no one following bitcoin xt wants the other crap they want. The result will be that, in case bitcoin core is not forking, then users will switch to xt. Then bitcoin core needs to fork, otherwise it will die. When that happens xt users will switch back.

Even when that doesn't happen. There would be other developers that would create xt versions that are free of the crap. And every bitcoiner could move on on that branch.

You should not fear that. No one is forced to use any crap hearn or so can come up with.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

• XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
• The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
• The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to a max of $0.50 USD, omg so much and then only...) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.




Edited for clarification and to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin".
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--


Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic.

I think you miss something. We don't want to devalue mining by lowering fees, we wan't to keep the fees the way they are now.

What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services?

Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so.

And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees.

Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin.

So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted.

I can't believe that bitcoiners go around screaming after control of their own currency. Only a certain amount of transactions, the miners need to earn more money.

Right... as if the mining corporations doesn't earn enough.

READ THIS!
http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

It's funny how everyone claims to have the core principles of bitcoin on his side. The article says xt-people want a visa because they want to pay everything with it.

I would say the other side wants something like visa since they want the fees to grow to a level that we could have used paypal from the start instead bitcoin.

And why should we only raise blocks when the fire burns? You know that takes a while until it is coded and everyone switched.

And with these limits you have NO space at all in case bitcoin adoption makes a huge step. When amazon, for some reason, would start to accept bitcoin then bitcoin would be dead. The user experience would be deadly. All because of these artificial block size limits.

Restrictions... not really what you have in mind when thinking of bitcoin.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services?

Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so.

And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees.

Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin.

So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted.

BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin!

Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization!

You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing.

*lol* So if bitcoiners don't want the way you want then they should create their own coin. Sounds like it's your coin. Instead, why don't you create your own coin and make it special. So that only high amount transfers are done and the fee is high. Surely sounds like an attractive altcoin. But you want that for bitcoin.

Ok, i did not get the point about how adoption could compromise decenralization. Maybe explain that to me.

So when you come with the banks... i guess the one that don't want the blocksize remove or raise are the one that want to squeeze everything out of bitcoin. Let's raise the fees so that miners earn more. The market will decide.

See, at the end the market will decide. And a coin that is expensive will die. So i will live with bein named a bank when the opposite of that is to send bitcoin dying.

[slaveforanunnak1]

What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services?

Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so.

And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees.

Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin.

So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted.

BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin!

Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization!

You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing.

*lol* So if bitcoiners don't want the way you want then they should create their own coin. Sounds like it's your coin. Instead, why don't you create your own coin and make it special. So that only high amount transfers are done and the fee is high. Surely sounds like an attractive altcoin. But you want that for bitcoin.

Ok, i did not get the point about how adoption could compromise decenralization. Maybe explain that to me.

So when you come with the banks... i guess the one that don't want the blocksize remove or raise are the one that want to squeeze everything out of bitcoin. Let's raise the fees so that miners earn more. The market will decide.

See, at the end the market will decide. And a coin that is expensive will die. So i will live with bein named a bank when the opposite of that is to send bitcoin dying.

Read this...

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

in case you can't click


Priorities of Bitcoin

Bitcoin, as a vision conceived by Satoshi Nakamoto is a decentralized cash payment system.  For such a system to work, you need a decentralized solution to the Byzantine General’s problem, which is something that I have detailed in the past and is succinctly defined here.  The reason Bitcoin is such a brilliant invention, was that it solved the consensus problem in a decentralized way.  The solution isn’t a perfect one, in fact, it cannot be formally shown to hold in all cases, (which is a source of consternation for many folks like Vitalik Buterin and likely drove him to develop Ethereum in response to the desire to have a formally provably secure solution), but it is shown in practice to work, in most real world situations so far.  For this solution to work, Bitcoin holds the following priorities in descending order of importance:  Consensus, decentralization, store of value, and payment system.  It would seem that the goals of the Bitcoin project have since diverged, under the leadership of Gavin, to focus more on the payment system use case for Bitcoin, at the expense of consensus and decentralization.  I would argue that sacrificing consensus, threatens all the other aspects of Bitcoin, not the least of which is its use as a stable store of value.  In fact, I believe such a consensus breach is an existential risk to Bitcoin itself.

[valiz]

BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin!

Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization!

You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing.

*lol* So if bitcoiners don't want the way you want then they should create their own coin. Sounds like it's your coin. Instead, why don't you create your own coin and make it special. So that only high amount transfers are done and the fee is high. Surely sounds like an attractive altcoin. But you want that for bitcoin.

Ok, i did not get the point about how adoption could compromise decenralization. Maybe explain that to me.

So when you come with the banks... i guess the one that don't want the blocksize remove or raise are the one that want to squeeze everything out of bitcoin. Let's raise the fees so that miners earn more. The market will decide.

See, at the end the market will decide. And a coin that is expensive will die. So i will live with bein named a bank when the opposite of that is to send bitcoin dying.

The current consensus has the 1 MB max block size implemented. Whether you like it or not, this is Bitcoin and if you want to change the consensus rules you need to perform a hard fork. In order to avoid wrecking chaos, you need to have consensus to do it.

Not adoption. Scaling bitcoin forcibly. More transactions -> more bandwith needed between nodes -> more difficult to run nodes -> fewer nodes -> more centralization.

I am supporting the block size increase described in sipa's BIP https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6. Forcing BIP101 with XT is reckless and it's actually an attempt to grab control of development.

You can use some payment oriented altcoin if you can't afford to pay a 0.001 BTC fee.

[slaveforanunnak1]

BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin!

Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization!

You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing.

*lol* So if bitcoiners don't want the way you want then they should create their own coin. Sounds like it's your coin. Instead, why don't you create your own coin and make it special. So that only high amount transfers are done and the fee is high. Surely sounds like an attractive altcoin. But you want that for bitcoin.

Ok, i did not get the point about how adoption could compromise decenralization. Maybe explain that to me.

So when you come with the banks... i guess the one that don't want the blocksize remove or raise are the one that want to squeeze everything out of bitcoin. Let's raise the fees so that miners earn more. The market will decide.

See, at the end the market will decide. And a coin that is expensive will die. So i will live with bein named a bank when the opposite of that is to send bitcoin dying.

The current consensus has the 1 MB max block size implemented. Whether you like it or not, this is Bitcoin and if you want to change the consensus rules you need to perform a hard fork. In order to avoid wrecking chaos, you need to have consensus to do it.

Not adoption. Scaling bitcoin forcibly. More transactions -> more bandwith needed between nodes -> more difficult to run nodes -> fewer nodes -> more centralization.

I am supporting the block size increase described in sipa's BIP https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6. Forcing BIP101 with XT is reckless and it's actually an attempt to grab control of development.

You can use some payment oriented altcoin if you can't afford to pay a 0.001 BTC fee.

this whole XT BS is starting to smell like a gov operation so bad!

[jonald_fyookball]

Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization!
 

Because its a false, arbitrary claim.

"Compromising" decentralization can mean whatever you want it to mean.

The fact of the matter is, the blockchain is growing every day and
full nodes are going to get more expensive to run over time, regardless
of whether the limit is raised.  (What's so magical about "1mb"?)

But if you raise it, at least you prevent (at least for a while) bandwidth problems and backlogs.
 
People who are against bigger blocks are mostly A) Blockstream guys
who took $21M in venture capital to build sidechains... or B) people
who are too biased against Mike Hearn to see the situation clearly
and are freaking out.

 

[meono]

Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization!
 

Because its a false, arbitrary claim.

"Compromising" decentralization can mean whatever you want it to mean.

The fact of the matter is, the blockchain is growing every day and
full nodes are going to get more expensive to run over time, regardless
of whether the limit is raised.  (What's so magical about "1mb"?)

But if you raise it, at least you prevent (at least for a while) bandwidth problems and backlogs.
 
People who are against bigger blocks are mostly A) Blockstream guys
who took $21M in venture capital to build sidechains... or B) people
who are too biased against Mike Hearn to see the situation clearly
and are freaking out.

 

Or C) Absolutely at the bottom of the IQ pool and scream nonsense about things that they cant even understand.


Such as " Oh no, Mike and Gavin will take over bitcoin. "


Their IQ is so low ,they cant grasp a simple concept: Fork blockchain require economic majority or consensus, Fork wallet client does not require shit and anyone can do it.