If SegWit is going to be shelved then we'd want a 4 MB hardfork ASAP, just imho.
Nah, if we just have to shelve segwit (which they won't, ever), 1.75MB oughtta cover it.
A can kick hard fork to buy time should be put at the maximum possible limit so we are not tediously going through all this derp molasses again next year.
I can agree with you there [feels weird], miners would soft limit below the hard limit anyway, like they did before we hit the 1MB ceiling. I'm for a fee market, just one determined by the producers, not the planners.
... you need to break your mind free of the Classic groupthink newspeak rhetoric, there are no "planners" just developers providing code that the nodes choose (or not) to run. Attempts at vilification through framing the debate and/or agenda via language (spin) is a sure sign that you are the subject of an attempt to manipulate your opinions and influence your previously independent thought processes.
You typed that with a straight face?
newspeak rhetoric: there are no "planners" just developers
nodes choose (or not) to run: while enduring/absorbing ddos and after being shown scary slides in 18hr meetings that include (not so) subtle threats
Attempts at vilification through framing the debate: The echochamber ruled with an iron fist by herr theymos. Sort by controversial. Talk of node options deemed altcoins and poster banned.
agenda via language (spin): Toomimcoin, Gavincoin R3KT [child-like glee], Hard Fork=Dangerous, Soft Fork=Safe Fork, No Contention, Always Consensus
attempt to manipulate your opinions and influence your previously independent thought processes: See above(!)
We [sometimes] disagree on an important issue... and that's ok. But please, your description of why I think the way I do, strains credulity.
