the healthy middle ground is simple

slap anyone with a wet fish who exaggerates 1mb to become 'gigabytes by midnight' (i mean this comically, not literally)
shake hands with anyone that says logical natural and incremental dynamic changes over time.

these incremental changes would occur by nodes showing what they are capable of and only adjusting to consensus of node capability.
in short. it only grows if nodes say yes without devs needing to puppet control the growth/stalling of the blockchain.
thus the "server farm" fud doomsday wont happen

however
doing things like filtering data, pruning data dilutes the capability/function/effectiveness of a nodes. thus not making it a full node, which is far worse than giving nodes power to decide when the blockchain should grow.
take FIBRE. imagine the only full nodes being FIBRE as the top tier of bitcoin network, controlling what direction the network goes. and the only publicly available codebase nodes are second tier cludgy implementations that have all these pruned, filtered options set.

(warning to fanboys. dont reply purely defending the devs(humans) instead think long and hard about the reality of people using the code/features)

remember if its not a full archival and full validation node. its not a full node.
all this filtering, stripping, bridging, pruning and 'treat as valid' checkpointing. is just ripping the main purposes of decentralised security away and just pretending to be decentralised. when infact its just faking the whole validation process. which in reality is the real threat.

but it takes alot of effort to look beyond the short term/temporary drama of dev's and to think about the long term viability of bitcoin to see that its not who is coding bitcoin, because devs can come and go.. but to see what is happening to the code features devs add which can affect things long term.

Forking to raise the block size to 2MB doesnt make sense now. Why do we have to go through all that risk for a 2MB block size? Theres an 8MB block size available in Bitcoin Cash, why dont the groups who want bigger blocks like Bitmain support that?

There is no good dynamic blocksize technology solutions as to date, if there were we would be using it already, the problem is, it just doesn't work, everything we've seen doesn't cut it, the game theory becomes easily exploited with the dynamic blocksize solutions seen thus far.

Therefore conservative blocksize and fee market remains the only option. Increase of blocksize is possible, but not with NYC agreement type of nonsense. At least 1 year from now, then consider a hardfork, we don't need more drama, we just got out of BCash drama, let's drop the hardforks for a while.

opposition if constructive can lead to improvement and possibly even competition.
but opposition if led to split is more destructive than anything else.
and in any case it has nothing to do with decentralization in my opinion.

no it will make things horrifying. we need a decentralized network when peers are defined as a user, or an individual person as long as possible. if these individuals stop being able to run a full node then it is the death of decentralization.

doesn't make any different. you are still describing a heavily centralized system.

same as above about opposition.
and it will only be good and constructive as long as both sides are working on the same thing not on different projects (split/forked off chain)

With the mass adoption of blockchain technologies that is expected in the the next year. Couldnt we speculate that Bitcoin Cash is indeed a solid crypto? It was forked and is maintained by some of the OGest of OGs.

Those who want seggy weggy and 1mb blocksize, can now have it using the alt Bitcoin Core. The compromise of 2mb is pointless.

There are those who don't trust seggy weggy and won't transact using seggy weggy.

Thus, those who want 8mb blocksize with no seggy weggy, can use the alt Bitcoin cash.

An insurance is most pointless and could lead to another hardfork therefore another alt... Bitcoin 2SW (2mb segregated witness) or whatever....

I doubt if decentralization will ever be compromised fully with this fork. Yes, you might have less full nodes, but Bitcoin will still be

decentralized. In my opinion if we have 1000 full nodes instead of 5000 full nodes, we are still having decentralized. We need all

5000 full nodes, but it is not the end of the network, if we only have 1000. It will still be decentralized.  

       


I bet governments have some underground agencies into Cryptocurrency.

                       

I ain't selling anything. I'm keeping hold of both. The value of both is higher than ever... it would be madness to sell. (unless for short-term trading opportunities)

None seggy software.

Shit happens when techies gets to much power and consensus is the victim.