I remember Luke being very early to understand the unintended network split…and to propose the new and unexpectedly hard forking “rule” be rejected.
I like Luke a lot. He’s not great at expressing himself but if you understand what he’s really saying, he’s rarely “wrong.”
I don't get it. How does this cap keep hanging without a hard fork?
Or is it only for creating new blocks, while validating existing ones can be of any size?
Luke is Luke. We disagree on a vast array of things. However, his knowledge of, experience with, and contributions to the Bitcoin software ecosystem are equally vast, and in the end, that's all that matters.