If we already know that the solution is a block increase I don't understand why it should be an increase to 2mb. If the increase is to be to 2mb in 2 years or less the community will be facing the same problem again.
So, in this sense, the increase should be to at least 8mb or even more.

Fair enough. im not taking sides just so you know im just asking becuse im curious. do you have any article or thread i can read to help me grasp the whole thing about why blocksize increase is a bad thing. right now im not for or against. but it seems to be a subject that stirs up alot of feelings.

This is great, this means that Bitcoin is hot!  This also means that a solution can be found from all of this frustration.

Then probably the only way is something like bitcoin classic since till now there is no suggested way to find a consensus otherwise.

That's not the hard limit. The 'hard limit' is 1 MB, you're talking about a 750kb soft limit. It is interesting because Antpool was one of those that mined a 749kb block, yet the block that they have previously mined was 930kb.
If I'm correct that is because of SPV mining.

I guess the current line of thinking is just to kick the can down the road. You do not implement something before it was thoroughly tested. I agree with this thinking in the sense that developers need to scale Bitcoin without risking the integrity of the whole network.

For example - " In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems. " - quoted from https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#roadmap

You cannot just dump bigger block sizes into the protocol and hope nothing goes wrong, because it is a Billion dollar network. Let's just approach this with caution.  

Simple and straight to the point. The end result would be simply that users on slow networks will be unable to catch up.

I believe this is deliberate as there isn't an actual capacity difference between the proposals as Classic represents another attempt at a change in governance with Toomin and Garzik in control(Gavin indicates he is just temporarily supporting and doesn't want to lead)

As stated here -
http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ

The governance model hasn't been fleshed out but will involve consider-it that the toomin brothers control. There is a clear indication of multiple hard forks in the future to "Clean up" all of Cores code and keep increasing the blocksize.

I know it is the softlimit but i remember a discussion where it was said that the standard setting in nodes was sat to 750kb as the hard limit even though the blockchain allower 1mb blocks already. Not all nodes had changed that and people asked them to adjust that value in order to help the network. But it might be that still some miners use that old hardlimit.

I might remember wrongly though.


You are correct with that. Only that it means that it is fully up to the miner how many transactions he put into a block. It can't be judged from the blocksize how many transactions could not be included.

But since you mention SPV mining. I believe the newest implementation was that, when a new block was found in the system, the miners start mining instantly with an empty block. in order to not lose hashingpower. Then it starts to check transactions and slowly put the transactions into the block, starting to hash on the block with the additional transactions.

That might be the reason why antpool creates such blocks? Dunno.

If it's needed to bring adoption forward then go ahead. Bitcoin will never succeed when adoption is hindered effectively. Sure there are potential problems, one has to deal with it like it happened all the time. And suddenly an arbitrarely setting becomes a breaking stone.