I believe your recalling incorrectly. Amaury Sachet specifically referred to this issue needing to be resolved as priority in his recent interview with CoinSpice a week or two ago.
A 22 meg garbage block is not a threat. Especially if it's intentionally invalid. Pools won't burn repeated blocks. Pools WILL start ignoring blocks from miners who try it.
If there are problems that crap out the mining process at 22mb then what is the urgency of 128mb? Especially since 32mb provides PayPal level transactions anyways.
That’s not the point. PayPal was only the transaction level comparison that I used in describing how much transactions BCH can currently handle at 32MB
If the system craps out at 22mb because of bottleneck issues then increasing to 128 doesn’t resolve that. Fix the bottleneck then increase to 128 in 6 months is logical & safe.
How do you think those businesses will react when the blocks start crapping out anytime they reach 22mb? Bad experience=bad business. Issues need to be resolved while there is less tx.
Yes, and they will get that with ABC along with the neccesseary optimizations to achieve gigabyte blocks. SV offers no concrete info on how they will fix the bottlenecks.
Ok so you have that info right in your link. Businesses need a clear pathway to higher blocksizes. 128Mb is kind of small but it may do for now. At least showing some progress.