freetrader said: Well, I agree with him that a stress test on mainnet to hit the current blocksize limit is counterproductive. Click to expand...

freetrader said: Nobody is saying the ceiling needs to be hit before we raise it. Click to expand...

freetrader said: Not sure what you are referring to here, if you mean one of the dynamic proposals that have been made, then they are (a) not magic and (b) not properly evaluated yet. It takes time especially when people are not helping. But maybe you are working on helping SV get to 2TB blocks by the end of the year or something /s Click to expand...

freetrader said: Who said that? I haven't heard that from BCH devs. Click to expand...

freetrader said: Infantile argument which is a strawman in this context. No-one's claiming that. Click to expand...

freetrader said: Who indeed. If you are someone with legitimate reason to push for prioritizing this while capacity exceeds demand by > x 100 , then by all means make a solid case, in public. Click to expand...

I do not think so. It shows the capabilities of the system to the world. If BCH can't deal with 32 MB blocks it is not working properly. And if sending transactions in aresembles a DDOS-attack we have a problem and I would argue, that devs should spend time on implementing some kind of anti-spam mechanism. If they really believe what they say.I would argue, that the testnet is for testingstuff. 32 MB is the current limit on main net.(I'd really like to see extensive testing on the testnet for every 6 month hardfork by ABC and BU, something that hasn't been done enough imho).You know as well as me, that for a long time this was the saying for the 1 MB limit as well.I was arguing on bitcointalk when we weren't even close to filling 1 MB blocks, that this limit needs to go asap. And you know exactly what was being said back then. Almost nobody wanted to hit the ceiling. Ooops, how could that happen?I'm referring to stuff like Avalanche, which binds dev power, is highly complicated and won't work.For the dynamic proposals: IIRC imaginary_username came up with a sensible approach. Which is till being bikeshedded to death afaik. I don't see a dynamic cap coming anywhere soon, especially since I read, that "scaling is not a priority" right now.(retweeted by amaury, who isn't working for free..)You know as well as me, that Amaury and other devs aren't spending their free time, they are paid.Well, maybe not directly. But there have been quite a few posts on reddit about which book stands in whose book shelf and how Amaury is an ancap and how this makes him align with BCH. Virtue signalling has become a big part of this charade imo.It seems like I'm not the only one concerned. Or do you think people like jessquit etc. are all CSW sockpuppets to make deadalnix's life hard? The case has been made and it has been made clear, that scaling is not a priority right now. I have to accept that.Apart from all that, it sickens me to see amaury asking for more devs. We had motivated BU devs working on scaling Bitcoin. Amaury does his best to remove all of them from continuing their work.We again have a concentration of power in the hands of an egomaniac and nothing more than promises for long term scaling.