not so against any kind of increase in the max block size
The Bitcoin Core capacity roadmap includes several block size increases, including the immediate term segwit proposal that many people are actively working on (and which has a testnet)-- which increases the capacity to fairly close to Gavin's latest proposal (which is not BIP 102).
'immediate term' , no one knows what that means exactly. 3 months? 6 months? 18 months?
This would be more immediate, simpler, and arguably more robust and less risky. What does core have against it?
The community has been screaming for bigger blocks. If core won't accept Gavin's proposal, it means
one of three things:
1. They don't care what the community wants (despite their pleas for consensus).
2. They think they know what is best and are too stubborn to accept anyone else's priorities.
3. They have an alterior motives.
Could be a combination of all the above.
Mr. G. Maxwell is a key developer on Core in addition to being a founder of Blockstream.
What do you think is his agenda?
Its becoming more clear.
His agenda is to make Bitcoin a settlement layer, which is why he refuses to
agree to a blocksize increase and will try to attack any ideas suggesting one.
After that, the plan is to build other layers on top such as LN hubs,
of which blockstream will run one or more... and collect revenue, as well as
build hubs for other companies and collect even more revenue.
(They will claim its all 'open source' make it as complicated and obfuscated as possible
to create a barrier to entry.)
Something like that.
That makes as much sense as anything. I'm not clear on it 100%, but
what I'm nearly 100% sure of, is that they have some plan to
collect revenue. You don't raise $76M in venture capital without one. You just don't.
So if what I said isn't it, then I challenge anyone to bring a more
logical explanation.
)
