I think the 95% thing is gonna be a major problem. Look at how divided everyone is and they're getting more divided by the day.

If he saw this coming, and I guess anyone would, why didn't he do more when he was in the driving seat back in the day? It's obvious a change was gonna become harder as more people came on board. There shoulda been something in place in 2012/13.

2mb was proposed as early as july 2015.

blockstream went on a political rally to say the proposals for 20mb, 8mb 4mb was too much.. totally over shadowing any talk of a 2mb.. then it started the next phase of politcal meandering. not talking about code at all but trash anyone that wants change and say they are corporations. while secretly it was blockstream that is the corporation with the controlled agenda after all.

we had debates about block size debunked because segwit+confidential pament codes would bloat blocks up to 4mb. so that blew blockstreams "2mb is bad" theory out of the water

we had debates about large blocks causing a dilution of full archival nodes debunked because in actual fact by blockstream offering no-witess mode and pruned mode many of the 6000 nodes wont be running in full archival mode.

we had the grace 5 month to implement code (february-july) theory debunked because blockstream released 3 different versions for core in 5 months so 1 version can easily be released in a couple months.

we had the grace period of 12 months debunked, because Luke JR (blockstream/core dev) and other devs thought it ok to put in a difficulty reduction hard fork with only 3 month grace(april-july).

so all in all there is no reason at all to not have the 2mb hard fork code in aprils release, with a 6month grace period.

if its there and people dont want it, it just wont get activated.. but if people want it and the code is not their, then its just a waste of time that will not benefit anyone. and if anyone was to make their own implementation that had it due to blockstream refusing it. then it would be blockstream causing a contention if the majority wanted to move to the 2mb buffer limit.

again having the code available but not activated allowing the community to decide if it activates or not is better then not having the code available and everyone begging the blockstream CEO to get his ass in gear

With the way Core is headed and the way the devs are acting, Bitcoin is headed more and more towards a centralized governance. Classic is what we need and that 2MB limit is what we(miners) need even more

Let coinbase govern us? Really? LOL. So Coinbase is the big boogieman now? Coinbase has no power over what wallet you decide to use, or even how you decide to use bitcoin. Not really anyway. Blockstream, on the other hand has achieved total centralization over the bitcoin development space, and it has been shown that some of their investors may very well have ulterior motives. Coupled with the constant ongoing DDoS attacks against Classic nodes (someone is spending hundreds of thousands on this)  and censorship attempts on this forum and r/bitcoin, it has become pretty clear what is really going on - any viable alternative to Core is being actively oppressed. On the plus side, these kinds of dirty tactics have a very high chance to backfire.

As for the rest of your argument, it's pointless. We need 2 mb now, and to buy us time to make more decisions. Next year around "maybe July 2017" is just too long. They are stalling and stalling and stalling. They are clearly opposed to a blocksize increase at all costs and some of them (luke-jr) even want to REDUCE the blocksize. They will eventually profit off side-chains in some capacity or another, which is clearly their ultimate goal - and not only that but they are trying to set up conditions to force us all to use*their* off-chain solutions. This is extremely dishonest. But I guess when you have a CEO like Austin Hill who made 100k scamming people in 3 months, things like ethics and morals don't really matter much huh?

Running Classic does not mean giving "governance" to coinbase. That is honestly just a really stupid, Low-IQ scare tactic. It means listening to the sensible arguments of Gavin and a blocksize increase which is clearly sorely needed.

You're an idiot. That's all there is to it. You do not even have the basic intelligence required to refute a single one of my points.

If you want central banker settlement coin and make big bucks off sidechains, make your own coin like Ethereum, don't go for a hostile takeover of Bitcoin and force your shit onto the rest of us.

Tell that to the millions of users in North America who signed up with them, because they are almost the only legal option in the USA to acquire and trade with Bitcoin. You try to buy Bitcoin anywhere else, let's say Localbitcoin and you get arrested and your money seized. Coinbase bend over to the government and accepted all the KYC and AML rules and regulations and effectively sold out the users privacy. Now they want to use that leverage < The high user base > to throw their weight around.

The sooner we see a lot more competition < Not just Ciircle> the better for all of us. The Americans should rid themselves from monopolies like that.

Raise you hand, if you think Gavin would have said anything good about the Core team. ^smile^

hey Mr. Shill its never been a debate about which band camp should control and veto code. its about a open community of bitcoin that all features and upgrades should be allowed as long as they work, that means all different implementations can include the code. it should never be a "follow core or die" philosophy, or a "follow classic or die philosophy".

2mb can be included in core... just like segwit can be included in classic.
heck, 2mb+segwit could be included in bitcoinj, and the other 12 branded bitcoin clients.

so stop turning a code debate into a political control debate

but core refuses because their payday from offchain solutions and sidechain solutions outweigh's the morals and ethics of doing what millions of people want.

Adam Back recently said on Twitter:
#Bitcoin "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code" -David Clark, IETF

Which I thought was interesting because:

Segwit=not ready
2MB=deployed

One of them is a realistic solution right now to mitigate potentially stuck transactions/backlog and is moving towards establishing rough consensus.

Gavin likes to please the crowd, and plays that hand like a Pro. He also likes to use scare tactics to influence people e.g. " If the block size limit is not increased, we will see more off-chain solutions.

But they won’t be the Lightning Network– instead, we will see highly centralized “clearing” agreements between exchanges and miners and merchants or merging of miners and transactions creators."

You already have off-chain solutions like Xapo doing just that, with no real negative influence for the Blockchain. It depends what you expect from the Blockchain, which would dictate it's limitations. If

everyone in the world wants to use it to move micro amounts "eg. Buying Coffee", services like Xapo can handle that and do the validation of the final value transfer on-chain. Nothing wrong with that.