# NOT POSTED

The block size war is not about the proper value of the block size limit.  It is about whether the network's capacity should be artificially kept below the demand, with a fee auction to decide which transactions get processed and when (as Greg wants); or whether there should be no artificial capacity limit, so that every transaction that pays a minimum fee is confirmed in the next block (as Satoshi intended).

It is a binary choice, so no compromise is possible.  One cannot be "only half pregnant".  A network that is only "lightly saturated" would have the ills of both options, and none of their virtues.  It would be unacceptable both the Greek and the Trojans.

Moreover, it is nor just a political choice, like cat vs dog, pizza vs hamburger, Republican vs Democrat.  Both sides are convinced that the other choice just doesn't work; and at least one of them is right.  

The small-blockians are firmly in power now, with support of Blockstream's millions and of the big miners   So, I don't see the block size war being decided any time soon.  It will end only after enough small-blockians realize that the "fee market" does not work, that saturated operation just makes the system worse and prevents further growth, and that the Lightning Network is just a pipe dream.  It may take another year for that to happen...