The pressure to do something is very likely if this continues for a long time frame. I'm not against HFs, if there is wide consensus, I think bitcoin never having HFs in the future is a bit romantic and can lead to less optimal solutions but I also don't believe an blocksize increase will happen through HF in this cycle, even with high fees for a long time, but things will get hot for sure in the community.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

We will need at least one hardfork to address Unix time rollover. HF's would be a political disaster if they aren't extremely small, targeted, critical fixes to address universally-acknowledged existential threats. They should not include any features that are open-ended dev toys and meant to enhance building upon bitcoin.