I think many people are happy about hearing @Adam Back clarify his thoughts on the mempool and pictures on the blockchain kerfuffle. But there's a lot of black and white polarized binary thinking going on. I'm seeing people say he's changed his mind. I don't know that he has other than possibly allowing his opinions on this to evolve as we all do. Having read some of his comments over the last while, I think it's more often that he's correcting someone who is making a logical error when we think he might be supporting one side or the other. I think he has one of the most nuanced takes on what we're seeing happen. But nuance flies over the head of people who are married to a binary. I will say this. I think this situation is not as dire as the block size wars were. In fact, that correct path that Bitcoin chose will protect us no matter what happens in October. I personally do not like opening our return up to 100,000 bytes. I think that's a silly idea. I think we could enlarge it slightly maybe to 160b or whatever the double would be and leave the configuration ability for those who want to make it smaller/larger. And to boil down what I think are the best arguments on both sides. On the side, wanting the increase: The fact is, if people want to jam JPGs into the blockchain, they can, and they will, and miners will include them no matter what the nodes are doing. When the nodes are signaling that they don't want big data chunks jammed into the blockchain, not only can they control their own node, (which is somewhat impotent, honestly) but they signal to the miners what they approve of and the miners signal to the pools if they move to pools that support things like mining, decentralization, schemes like stratum and such. So, in the end, we have technical arguments against emotional arguments against social arguments against legal arguments, and we end up talking past each other quite a bit this way. Anyway, I think we'll be alright in the end personally.