Well I can't call this a surprise even though I had called for a cease of fire. I just can not understand why someone would listen to or support a person who is talking about a takeover of Bitcoin? This should be considered a hostile takeover. XT is just full of controversy.
However, we should shift the focus away from it towards the nexy workshop and 2016. Most of the times when I randomly check the blocks, none of the last few are close to 1 MB (i.e. we are fine for now).
However, we should shift the focus away from it towards the nexy workshop and 2016. Most of the times when I randomly check the blocks, none of the last few are close to 1 MB (i.e. we are fine for now).
(without an "M" there your voice is so much Loude'r, Lauda!)
I got to agree with this. I'm glad that many (me included) are slowly but inevitably converging to the same conclusions. There are million ways to change Bitcoin and only one way to keep it chugging along as it has been for many years now. If there is much disagreement and heated debates about the change then most likely we are solving the problem that doesn't exist yet and instead certain interests of various internal parties come into play.
Bitcoin needs to demonstrate that blockchain validation costs can temporarily go down for it to become sustainable for the decades to come, while at same time providing a test playground for potential fee market to develop to see if enough economic pressure can be maintained by the first mover advantage and the network effect that comes with it.
The limit will have to be raised at some point along the way in order to keep Bitcoin's single transparent unified ledger strong and competitive, because only one blockchain can properly sit in a balance of PoWer that exists on the "Blue Planet" today. For as long as Bitcoin remains an open and sustainable network its future will be bright!
) 
