Op,
why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?
Because they are the cancer killing /b/itcoin
There you go again, trying to sell XT using the fear of Bitcoin dying.
Bitcoin is stronger than ever, in part thanks to the adversity provided by the attempted Gavinista governance coup.
You XTurds truly deserve to be exiled together on the Island of Misfit Gavinistas.
Such strange bedfellows the failed putsch has created! It sounds like a joke...
Frap.doc (a Bitcoin Maximalist Monopolist Supremacist), Peter R (a clueless spherical cow counter), and J Trolfi (King Buttcoin) walk into Satoshi's bar.
2 hours later, united by their common hatred of Team Core, they are giggling like long lost sisters.
"Let's get out of here" says Frap.doc. "Yes," responds Peter R, "the drinks are terrible, and the pours are too small!"
I think what iCEBREAKER said is on point, basically to sum it, there's no way raising the blocksize to 20, or even 8mb will get you anywhere close to where we need to be. There's no way around something like blockstream if you want to achieve VISA level transactions in the future. I am in favour of raising it a bit, but have in mind, there is no huge scalability possible if everything happens on chain.
I agree big blocks aren't *the* solution to scaling.
What Ice'n'Berg won't accept is that the block size limit should be increased or removed so that it doesn't cause a problem. They argue that is using fear to justify it, when anyone with a shred of common sense can see its just prudence.
Fear of centralisation is a concern, and for that reason I'd say that right now removing the limit entirely is probably equally risky as keeping at 1MB.
The mundane truth, as ever, is that somewhere in the middle is likely best.
