You are not alone with suspicion that Core wants to increase the block size.
Eli Afram just released an article on this subject.
Is Core laying the groundwork for a blocksize increase?
That quote from Adam says it all, Cypherdoc called it first in 2014 (what happened to him BTW).
This is all about control. segwit2x shifted control from blockstream which is why it was killed. Now that control has been maintained core is free to bump by 2MB in an emergency hard fork while maintaining control (despite claiming for years that hard forks take years of careful planning).
It will be positioned as "core is responding to user requests" or "core is caving". But neither of these are true, if it was we would have segwit2x. If core implements a 2MB bump so soon after killing segwit2x, then the only answer is it was done this way to maintain control.
That is why I like the BCH roadmap, it offers more than just larger block scaling.
BTW, core's economic illiteracy knows no bounds. They clearly think they need to: 1) keep fees high enough to push people to 2nd layer solutions (they probably think the $1-$10 range), but 2) not let fees get so high that people leave BTC altogether. The problem not that controlling fees in this manner is probably impossible, the problem is even if they achieve it somehow it still simply pushes people to other chains with sub 1 cent fees. On top of that different regions of the world will respond to fees very differently, a $1 fee means something very different to a person in the US vs a person in Venezuela for example.
[doublepost=1513878580][/doublepost]
To be fair actual Core devs weren't around when Hal Finney and Ray Dillinger (aka beae, aka cryddit) convinced Satoshi to disable some OP_CODEs.
Interestingly enough Hal was the one that convinced Satoshi to put in place the 1MB max block size limit.
Thanks I did not know that history. Very interesting.
