I'm happy to have some big blocker perspective, as I know my comment perhaps paints "Big Blockers" in less than favorable light. Not intentionally. It's a bit

I'm happy to have some big blocker perspective, as I know my comment perhaps paints "Big Blockers" in less than favorable light. Not intentionally. It's a bit hard to be completely fair in a short summary, given the events that have occurred, even though those events are likely not the fault of real big blockers. That said, good technology should _never_ be used as a bartering chip. I think it's hypocritical of any Bitcoin user to be against SegWit for political reasons. From day 1 Bitcoin has suffered of accusations of being used for illegal and evil activities. And from day 1 we, as a community, have had to fend off those claims saying "Yes, it _can_ be used for illegal activities. But that's not what it's about. It's about a revolutionary technology that, for the most part, will be used for good." To block SegWit is to go against that ethos, an ethos so embedded into Bitcoin. It's about technology; about changing the world. SegWit enables so many cool new uses for Bitcoin. Can it be used to create off-chain transactions; something some big blockers are against? Sure. But that's no reason to stop good technology. Just like it was no reason to stop Bitcoin itself, just because it _could_ be used for illegal activities. > 2MB HF + segwit proposal I don't understand that proposal at all. SegWit _is_ an increase in block size, by on average 2MB. So why have the additional hard fork if the block size is already increasing? > Segwit is nice, sure. But us big blockers know that if it gets activated now, then we are never going to see big blocks, regardless of how much support we get. The one good thing to come out of this years long battle in the community, is that ultimately users and miners are in charge. If big blockers wanted big blocks, all they have to do is offer them. Offer real specifications and real code with real tests and real study. To date, I've never seen that from the big blocker camp. I'm not in either camp, really. Small or big. Personally, I think Bitcoin will need to increase block size eventually anyway, whether directly or indirectly. 1MB forever is silly. But nobody has offered a reasonable, long term solution to increasing block size, besides SegWit. Hard forking is very risky. Emergent consensus is risky. All the big block supporting altcoins I've seen are cobbled together messes. And I'm not speaking as a user; I'm speaking as someone who writes code for a living, implemented the foundation of all modern mining ASICs, and have dealt with the Bitcoin Core code specifically as well.