-snip-
1. Again: This was debated for 3 years.
There was no continuous discussion. It popups and goes down. Besides, earlier, it was not important as it is now.
Gavin was forced to release something with Mike Hearn
First of all, read
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ilbit/mike_hearn_responds_to_xt_critics/cuhpil1.
Mike Hearn proposed a hardfork without consensus.
-snip-
As nothing that has been proposed so far (Lightning, merge mined chains,
extension blocks etc) has much chance of actual deployment any time soon,
that leaves raising the block size limit as the only possible path left.
Which is why there will soon be a fork that does it.
because Greg and the kids on the blockstream wouldn't play ball. If they really wanted to
release something, they would have worked with Gavin so the solution is more to their preferences.
Core developers said Gavin's 20 MB block size limit increase were not a good idea. They didn't say don't increase block size limit. And, it was Gavin and Mike who did not accept proposals other than Gavin's.
Either
their interests in Blockstream prevented that,
"Either Mike's and Gavin's Coinbase/Circle involvement made them do it or lack of communication/team skills." FTFY. I don't believe this though. FWIW, I am not choosing any side now.
or they lack leadership/communication/team
skills.
Mike and Gavin are the two people who in the middle of discussion proposed a hardfork without consensus.
Either way is a problem. I think when you boil it down, they just don't see the urgency
as Gavin does. Maybe that's because of their other solutions like the lightening network.
Urgency does not mean we should implement a bad solution of Gavin's. Applying Moore's law but it doesn't... You know what I mean!
Maybe they are willing to stall Bitcoin and take bigger risks.
But they are making progress and how can that be stalling?
They don't want to take technical
risks purportedly, but they are willing to risk slowing down adoption.
Purportedly?
Taking a technical risk is better and willing to risk slowing down adoption is better than not willing to risk slowing adoption and not taking technical risk. We should make our technical stuff better before going for adoption. Nonetheless, waiting for a solution for sometime does not slow down adoption.
There is a risk/reward.
and part of their reward is blockstream business activities. This is what you seem to deny.
They will get their reward for working them and we, at least me, don't deny it. What I(we) deny is you telling they don't want an increase because of Blockstream. Both are false because Core developers didn't say they did not want an increase and Blockstream works work better in higher block size.
2. This leads to the next point.
Above points are just your or other XT-supporters creation. So it does not leads to "next" point of yours.
Gavin says a fix is urgently needed.
I say an imperfect fix IS better than no solution.
I don't think we can come with a "perfect" solution but at least, we should come with a good solution. Not a solution with doubling every two years and hint Moore's law. Moore's law is not applicable anymore and it is not good to implement without proper testing.
Gavin
essentially said "Core devs won't agree, but we need bigger blocks,
so I'm going to do the best thing I can and release Bip 101 on Mike's fork."
You are right. Core developers don't agree to Gavin's solution but does that mean they are against block size limit increase? No.
No one ever said Bip 101 was perfect, but who are you to say its "broken"
and its worse than no solution?
Because Gavin used Moore's law but it is not applicable anymore.
I guess you know more about bitcoin than
Gavin so we should listen to you.
---
Certainly not!
The only way your position even makes sense is if you truly believe its not
important to have bigger blocks asap.
Its important to have bigger block size limit but we should not implemented a bad solution.
It must mean you agree with the devs
Not really. I agree with the developers that Gavin's solution is not a good one.
who aren't ready to raise the limit.
They will implement a good solution. We will get higher block size limit soon! Miners are voting...
Somehow it doesn't scare you.
It scares me when you and others say to implement Gavin's solution.
You're not
worried about scalability.
I am worried about Bitcoin's long-term success.
Again, risk/reward. But you won't be getting the
rewards that blockstream and its investors get by taking their side.
I certainly get a reward. Bitcoin.
Sorry but I don't see any relevant answer in it. Maybe you can post here with references.
I am asking one thing to Jonald, knight22 and whoever else who is saying Core developers hired by Blockstream is only for 1 MB block size limit. Did all these Core developers actually say it?
By the way, block size or bigger blocks is not equal to bigger block size limit.
Show Posts
)
Any idea WHY? Was there any technical issues on the service you used to ship? OR will it receive soon? I had hope that it will but now it is approximately 1 month, my hope has gone. I have no complains on this company. Take that 0.05 BTC as my donation. 
Best Of Luck!
I got an another question because it dosen't make sense to me when they ask you to run LiveCD thing how you are supposed to keep that watch-only or whatever you made on the LiveCD if you will reboot later ? 
