When the printing press started the Renaissance and an ongoing golden age of more than 500 years now, as well as the reformation etc, the church tried all they could to stop it. Of course you can't stop what is self evidently good, but you can delay it."locked!" --@cypherdoc
Wow, you're right:
Theymos and Blockstream/Core have become like the medieval Catholic church. Science is banned!
Now, I don't buy into conspiracy theories, even though I can't see how blockstream is to become a one billion dollars company based on their funding of $75 million x10, or why AXA, the insurance giant which stands behind banks as AIG stood behind Lehman, gave them most of the money, especially as they have no product whatever to show even after two years, but I suppose there could be a million reasons and no point speculating in the absence of evidence.
I think Gregory Maxwell and Peter Todd believes blocksize should be kept at 1MB forever, but it is difficult to ignore the parallels. However, unlike the 14 hundreds, time moves faster now and thus ability to delay far shorter. If Peter Smith, Blockchain CEO, is right that segwit won't give a thing until 2018, I can't see how 1MB can hold for more than a few months, but, when a narrative is created to potentially give miners' shortsighted interest cover, such as fees will go up much higher and they will make a lot more money, a potential reason for lack of capacity increase identified all the way back in 2010, it is difficult to predict.
In my view, it is obvious that miners believe in the fee market. As they themself stated, they believe that fees will go up and up and they will make a lot of money.
At the end of the day, the current 1mb is not because of words, but because of action and the only ones who can act in this specific scenario where businesses and users back an increase, are the miners, as far as continuing as we have been for the past seven years is concerned. Their lack of action is probably based on reason, whether factual or faulty, and that reason is probably based on analysis of what will make them most money.
Currently, it is obvious they think the way to make most money is to cap capacity in the hope of fees increasing. Without any scientific undertaking, but simple observation, fees are increasing in bouts as the mempool is cleared during weekends. Price has been increasing considerably bringing in other, unrelated factors, which should be ignored as far as the premise that a fee market would give miners more base revenue is concerned, but, without any scientific undertaking, it is not very clear what we should reasonably expect to happen.
Bitcoin works under the premise that miners are selfish and act in their own selfish interest. We can therefore expect them to take any path that promises them more money, which, as far as narratives go, currently, is 1MB forever as they have themselves stated. If that is faulty or incorrect, it needs to be shown so because if there is anyone to persuade it is the miners, not Greg or Todd or Theymos or anyone else who hold no power or say whatever but empty words and whose mind will probably never change, for some decades anyway and I don't think the miners are persuaded by a constant outpouring of anger or personal attacks etc. That's why Peter_R's science is so refreshing.
Opinions are free, but facts are sacred.
