Yes, this is my favourite theory. And the quicker it happens, the better.
You run an above average risk of the main stream media pushing ETH over bitcoin when it happens and the new narrative
"Bitcoin can't scale" will be on the lips of everyone fleeing fiat, it will be pushed by every naysayer who's ever predicted bitcoin's failure.
That's not the outcome I'm aiming for. Unlike
@jonny1000 I don't want to see the value of bitcoin go to zero before we hard fork to increase the block size with less than 95% unilateral support.
The sooner
@jonny1000 realise that showing support for bigger blocks isn't an attack or counter productive, the sooner we'll get to that 95% support you want. But you have to start unequivocally supporting the need for bigger blocks - anything less is not support. Discouraging support, saying (and I paraphrase) "if you stop supporting bigger blocks well get 95% support for bigger blocks sooner",
@jonny1000 approach is counter intuitive and ignorant. This is the real world not an authoritarian parent saying to a 2 year old, you can have the cooky just stop asking for it. - This debate has been going on since 2013 the 2MB compromise is almost not even a compromise let alone an acceptable solution. It kicks the can down the road for another 6 months at best and we have to stop asking for it for another year before we get it.
good luck with that.
edited - sorry
@Norway most of the post was directed at Jonny1000 - I misread who I was replying too.
[doublepost=1466017583,1466016897][/doublepost]
I would even argue that due to subjective perception of relative value (a la hedonic treadmill - type theories), that significant sideways price action when miners have the expectation of price appreciation can serve the same function psychologically as a price collapse.
I'm tempted to hit the sell button every time I even contemplate this idea I'm predicting a sharp market correction about now (I'm all sold up so it's not me)
