Gavin and Mycelium on bigger blocks

[rogerver]

Gavin Andresen on bigger blocks:

"In my view, people are using the block size limit for something it was never meant to do– to influence how people use the Bitcoin blockchain, forcing some uses off the blockchain. I cannot support that type of top-down, centrally-planned vision." -Gavin Andresen

Mycelium on bigger blocks:

"We support whatever will allow bitcoin to remain censorship resistant. For now that's only possible with bigger blocks."

https://twitter.com/MyceliumCom/status/ ... 5614978049
https://twitter.com/MyceliumCom/status/ ... 4534386688

[arnoudk]

Great quotes! Thanks.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Current block saturation is 60%. So we have some time left and SW is coming soon enough. LN will take some pressure away from the mainnet too.

https://kaiko.com/

[Domrada]

Current block saturation is 60%. So we have some time left and SW is coming soon enough. LN will take some pressure away from the mainnet too.

https://kaiko.com/

Respectfully caution that you check your premises. 1) Average blocksize can never be = block size limit. Head first mining virtually guarantees there will always be some empty blocks even when the mempool is overflowing. Therefore the true current block saturation is > 60%. 2) SW may not offer any relief in the short term, because of the way it is being implemented. 3) LN may not take any pressure away from the mainnet, because transaction volume is not 0-sum. New transactions may occur in channels as a result of LN, but that does not necessarily mean mainnet traffic will decrease; in fact it will probably increase.