It is clear that Bitcoin needs to grow massively in order to reach those who need it most.
Carpe Diem for Bitcoin
Mike Belshe
48420

You are appealing to your own authority, assuring us it is “clear” that we need 2MB blocks.

You can fork off and have 2MB blocks. Users will not go with you until we perceive the benefits (quick ‘n dirty way to increase throughput, in the short run) outweigh the risks (miner centralization, bad precedent for ever-increasing blocksizes, etc.).

Why are we still talking about this anyway? Fees are much lower since SegWit already increased network throughput by discounting the size of witness data, as you know.

The “store of value” attribute matters much, much more to BTC hodlers than something like “overall network transaction throughput”… unless you’re CEO of a BTC payment processing business, you should be able to see that.

You make it sound as if we can’t increase to 2MB *at any point in time in the future, as soon as it is needed*. You sound like a salesman on an infomercial, urging us to “act now!” and buy in the next 15 minutes.

You know that the network can adopt 2MB blocks in the future, should consensus emerge at that time. It happened multiple times in the past, e.g. when the limit was raised to the current 1MB level. Do you want us to prematurely increase the blocksize to 2MB in order for you to *save face*?

Like what you read? Give Matthew Campbell a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.