Actually I wanted to stop discussing here , because I can ' t change minds and the path is already choosen and I ' m not hostile to this path . But since you looked several times on my comment 1 . You perceive a problem and feel that it is not being adequately addressed . You don ' t feel taken seriously . You aren ' t getting what you want . Yes . More or less . Not just me , a lot of people . And latest fee event proofed it again plz don ' t start the discussion if spam attack or not . Some other people get what they want no hf increase at all , but are still complainin about not being understood . 2 . So it seems to me that our memory of the events diverge slightly . Yeah . Nice you say it this way and not See , you are wrong and I am right . I don ' t want to waste our energy with shedding about the details . You go it mostly right , I think , but I don ' t see why this is no compromise and understanding by team big blocks and no compromise and no understanding by team small blocks . Just one thing The text clearly indicates that the present developers would implement a hardfork proposal and present it to the community . This is actually in the text of the agreement . Also , Antpool started signaling for Classic within weeks of the meeting . Luke did implement preliminary code for the hardfork by the way . I know , the agreement is highly interpretable . Antpool did never signal classic , only f 2 pool let the miners vote for signalling classic . In the end the pools stayed to their main promise not running coreincompatible software while core did not deliver a release with a hardfork . Surely you can discuss the semantics , endlessly , but in the end what counts is if miners think the agreement was honored enough for them to run SegWit . This makes the pressure on Roger Ver to not block SegWit completely silly . If there should be pressure on the miners to think about their interpretation of the agreement or on some devs to hold what they promised in the agreement . 3 . no fee marketI guess it ' s too much saying that your selection of this detail means that you are ok with the other wishes ? Why no fee market ? What is the incentive ? Currently the incentive is a reward with 12 , 5 bitcoin . If it happens that the price doubles in a period of four years , what may happen for the next 812 years , the incentives for miners don ' t change at all . If this formular is broken , we can discuss a fee market . Demanding a fee market now it is just a projection of some future problem into the present and harming adoption ironically setting the furture incentive on risk . In the long run we surely need fee income to sustain mining . But I think a strictly set blockspace limit is one of the worst methods to achieve this . Since putting tx in a block means work , there is a natural fee market don ' t start with discussing peter ' s paper , look at 0 txblocks , and imho an organic growing number of tx under the conditions of a natural production cost based fee market is the best way to secure and scale miner ' s income in the future while a strict limit depends on the assumption that users are willing to pay very very high prices and risks ending with a limited number of users paying a limited amount of fees . If you look at charts like production cost transaction blockchain . info has one you see the madness of this economic approach . If you further think about it , the biggest menace to miner ' s future income is not an limit increase , but lightning . I can only sustain mining under crazy conditions which would equa to a doubling of the price for at least 45 reward era see above no fee market needed at all