Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:57 pm

It should seem that 1MB is just as arbitrary as 2MB, or 8MB or 20MB.

If the network can handle more traffic than we have today, the network should allow it.

There is no reason to artificially limit the number of on chain transactions.

exactly, especially if you look at the data sizes which the proposed core road map will be using.a true full node accepts, relays, validates and stores ALL data. so if you discount their pruned, no-witness, lite mode options and concentrate on the true meaning of a full node. Then count up the extra bytes of data needed for things like confidential payment codes, etc. It becomes very obvious that if core believes the true full node bitcoin network can cope with 5mb blocks to cover all of their proposed features past, present and near future. Then there was obviously never a problem with propagating just 2-4mb of standard transaction block data proposed in 2013-2015. Meaning this lengthy data bloat debate has been meaningless and just time wasted not moving forward.So telling people to disregard any previous attempt at scaling, or any scaling that is done by random people has caused an unnecessary fee price war.From 2009-2014 the fee was only a couple cents at most. That is correct, you have read it right, 5 years of just a couple cents.But in the last couple of years we seen it jump to over 20cents, while also still not guaranteeing users get their transactions into the next block.This issue should have been rectified at least a year ago, and definitely not delayed until 2017.anyone arguing "if your transaction is slow to confirm, simply increase the fee" is not helping the community.In short if core dev's think 5mb is ok for their own full node road map. Then why do/did the core dev's even argue that 2mb or 4mb blocks of standard transaction types are/were bad. which has resulted in a delay of scaling and the false belief that increasing the fee is a solution to the speed/capacity issue.