Do we want a split or do we not want a split? In the discussions I've had with Coinbase, Bitpay and with BU members that are in close contact with nearly all of the world's mining power, it seems that no one wants a split. So I suspect there will be no split.
If a minority wants to start a little-bitty blockchain based on the Bitcoin ledger, then change the PoW. I'm sure you'll be left alone.
If a minority wants to start a little-bitty blockchain based on the Bitcoin ledger, then change the PoW. I'm sure you'll be left alone.
If any of the "big block" solutions had the support of the economic majority, they would have forked ages ago without a second thought.
Pretending that only a minority favors a "small block" solution does you no credit. If it were true, you would fork this instant, and that's obvious.
The only metric that shows more than a smidgen of support for BU is pool operator signalling. Mining pools have long been a thorn in Bitcoin's side and I suspect a renewed effort to bring decentralization back to mining in the near future.
The only way we'll get larger blocks is if a hash power super-majority supports larger blocks. The only way a hash power super-majority will support larger blocks is if they believe that it is in their and Bitcoin's best interest. Right now this is not the case. We know this because when Bitcoin.com accidentally produced a 1.000023 MB block, it was orphaned.
If you're point is that right now blocks larger than 1 MB would be orphaned, then yes I agree. What we're doing with Bitcoin Unlimited is providing node operators the tools to allow them to accept larger blocks, providing miners the tools to produce larger blocks, and both groups the tools to signal their block size preference to the network. I believe soon the network will be upgraded accordingly.
