Its strikes me as funny and disingenuous when the Core Mini block proponents shot down Gavin Andresen's (over a year ago) proposal that was ready to implement allowing bitcoin block size to scale with demand.
The reason back then was we don't need it and if blocks fill up we can just quickly hard fork to accommodate the new users. Needless to say we can't implement an increase today a year later because it's "technically not feasible" and we need at least 12 months to schedule it.
Sounds like a delay tactic, it is.
If you've been paying attention there has been a lot of compromise on behalf of the proponents for Bitcoin growth. They have moved to compromise limiting max block size down and down until it's an insignificant 2MB
limit. (
that's the size of 1 Web page every 10 minutes)
In contrast Adam Back (a Blockstream employee) who ones argued limiting bitcoin growth to a max of 2 - 4 - 8MB increase happening every 2 years as reasonable compromise, Has today signed a
big deal with one of the world's biggest Global corporate fanatical services firms PwC. to use his team of Core Bitcoin Developers to optimize bitcoin to fit their needs.
Not surprising he is now arguing that the Bitcoin network should not exceed the 1MB limit as it can't handle blocks any bigger than 1MB for technical reasons.
The Blockstream effect is real, it reared its ugly head when they introduced the idea of moving bitcoin value off the Blockchain onto less secure sidechains and now this.
this is full bear mode if you ask me, we're entering a great buying opportunity, should the bitcoin we know and love be allowed to scale or this could be some new paradigm where bitcoin takes a new turn.
either way I think we could exsect Bitcoiners who though PwC customers would be buying bitcoin, are now rebalancing as PwC buy the Bitcoin Developers.
Poll
