For the record I support the "COOP" compromise. SegWit activation during the UASF timeline so that doesn't screw things up, with a locked-in HF to 2MB blocks.

For the record I support the "COOP" compromise. SegWit activation during the UASF timeline so that doesn't screw things up, with a locked-in HF to 2MB blocks. I agree that bigger blocks are needed to ease even non-witness/standard transaction backlogs, and to ease up on wallet and other providers that want a faster network in-place without needing updates that work in concert SegWit like the Lightning Network. The 1 MB was originally an anti-spam limit. In a dream world, we would have a dynamic anti-spam block size. But I don't see consensus happening any time soon. :(