What are you trying to do? Break the ice with a hard fork so that later it
becomes easier to do so, with people more complacent towards it? There are
many solutions to the scaling problem that do not require a hard fork and
are quite simple to implement actually, and don't come with the
complications involved with a hard fork. I'm not a reputable developer on
this list, so my opinion probably doesn't matter much, but I watched and
analyzed this situation closely and I don't like this idea.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Opening a mailing list thread on this BIP:
>
> BIP PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/173
> Code PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451
>
> The general intent of this BIP is as a minimum viable alternative plan to
> my preferred proposal (BIP 100).
>
> If agreement is not reached on a more comprehensive solution, then this
> solution is at least available and a known quantity.  A good backup plan.
>
> Benefits:  conservative increase.  proves network can upgrade.  permits
> some added growth, while the community & market gathers data on how an
> increased block size impacts privacy, security, centralization, transaction
> throughput and other metrics.  2MB seems to be a Least Common Denominator
> on an increase.
>
> Costs:  requires a hard fork.  requires another hard fork down the road.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>


-- 
PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28  49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647