Your label of "factually incorrect" was laughable. I said that advocating a fork now was irresponsible because the code is thoroughly unaudited and untested.
That is wrong this is what you said:
The code is thoroughly unaudited and untested. The idea of hard forking now is beyond irresponsible.
Therefore it was accurate to say that it is factually incorrect for you to say or imply that I said or support hard forking now.
You continually take the dishonest approach by addressing the passive word "now" rather than the active argument, "that BIP101 is thoroughly unaudited and untested." You, of course, have never addressed that point.
I have addressed this point continuously you have just refused to acknowledge it. Just ignoring my argument is not the same as refuting it.
rarely address the actual point made; you respond to it with your beliefs about governance and philosophy.
Because I think that these subjects are relevant to the points you have made and the situation that we are in.
That doesn't justify avoiding my arguments with entirely irrelevant bullshit about governance and politics. Conflating technical issues with political issues is dishonest and evasive; it is merely a refusal to acknowledge that bitcoin is a technology with technical limitations.
I do not refuse to acknowledge that Bitcoin is a technology with technical limitations. You however are refusing to acknowledge that Bitcoin is also a social and political experiment.
You are using a fallacy of Unwarranted assumption since you are basing some of your conclusions on scenarios which are very unlikely to take place, and which you have not argued for taking place either. You are also saying that we should not increase the block size because it is untested, However then you say that it is impossible to actually test increasing the block size, this is however not true since it can be tested by actually implementing it.
Please prove that the scenario [lapse in network security] is [very unlikely to take place] under an exponential scaling regime.
You are asking me to prove a negative which in this case is impossible.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proofI've given multiple examples, which you have inadequately addressed. More knowledgeable people could shed light on others. You, again, are mischaracterizing my position to suit your argument. I've argued that a gradual, incremental approach is preferable, and in line with engineering and development standards:
conceivably, we can test a 2MB block regime in a .5MB environment -- can we test an 8GB block regime in a .5MB environment? no, that's insulting
You are ignoring my arguments, I have already responded to this, I said that it is not feasible to do hard forks on a regular basis like this without splitting Bitcoin. This has to do with very human reasons which you refuse to acknowledge. Bitcoin works not just because of the technology but also because of the people involved and the psychology, game theory, incentive, ideology, history, politics, philosophy and ethics. There is a very human factor that is critical to the running of this machine, it would be unwise to ignore that.
You are also using the nirvana fallacy. Since one of your criticisms of BIP101 is that it is not perfect, yet a perfect solution does not exist, yet you think we should wait for this perfect or better solution that does not exist yet and which might not ever exist.
Criticizing BIP101 =/= waiting for a "perfect" solution. Rejecting one of the first reckless proposals =/= waiting for a "perfect" solution. I've already stated to you multiple times that BIP102 is a much more acceptable approach, which will allow us to deal with potential issues of scaling in real time and increase capacity on a need basis, rather than baselessly assuming that we can immediately solve any threat that arises on an exponentially increasing schedule. That BIP101 is perceived by some as a "solution" does not, by extension, make it acceptable.
You are again just ignoring my arguments, I said first of all that BIP102 does not exist yet. So far it is just a few words on a piece of paper and PDF, no code, no client, no plan for a hard fork. Therefore I do not consider it to be a viable option yet. I also said that I do prefer BIP101, however that if BIP102 would remove the 32 megabyte limit, I would absolutely support BIP102 instead of BIP101. I would even support a 20% yearly increase for instance, with a fixed limit that would end within a few decades. However this option would have to become real before I would be able to support it. I do not see what is so unreasonable about that.
You are also using an argument from silence, since you are basing your conclusion on a lack of contrary evidence, you said it yourself that the biggest problem are the problems that we can not predict yet.
My conclusions aren't based on a lack of contrary evidence -- although yes, you have done absolutely nothing to prove that BIP101 is worthy from a technical perspective (the bitcoin dev community and the miners have already voiced their opinion that it is not), and repeatedly blathering about social contracts and the American revolution doesn't change that.
This is a appeal to authority, which also does not prove anything. Also some of your arguments are based on their being a lack of contrary evidence for instance:
More importantly are the problems that have not made themselves apparent yet.
I said that in addition to known problems that will likely arise, many others exist that are likely not yet understood.
I've stated multiple times why these arguments are completely irrelevant. Let me dumb it down for you by demonstrating your two most common strategies:
Me: BIP101 is technically unsound because A, B and C.
You: But it is just Core with the BIP101 patch, I do not see what is so irresponsible about that.
Me: BIP101 is technically unsound because A, B and C.
You: I support BIP101 for reasons of political realism.
I can make this more accurate:
poeEDgar: BIP101 is technically unsound because A, B and C.
VeritasSapere: BIP101 is technically sound because A, B and C are not true because of reosons D, E and F.
poeEDgar: "That doesn't justify avoiding my arguments with entirely irrelevant bullshit about governance and politics.""meaningless political drivel""pathetic attempts at logic""You continue to use evasive and fallacious approaches instead of providing substantive responses".
As you can see your response to my counter argument is not a argument at all, you are just refusing to acknowledge my counter arguments.
You are also guilty of using straw man arguments and ad hominem as well, but these fallacies can at least just be ignored in terms of the argumentation itself.
I take issue with the unbacked claim of straw man arguments. In fact, I've kept the ad hominem to a minimum, but it will only increase from here on out, as you've made it abundantly clear that you cannot argue logically and honestly. Thus, you are not worth anyone's time.
This post is a great example of the many things you claim I said which I have never said, you can even check my post history and the article that I have written on the subject. I have already admitted to mistakenly using straw man arguments on this thread, maybe it would be wise if you did the same.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12331928#msg12331928You have not even responded to my rebuttal of your counter arguments, so as far as this dialectic goes that is still where the reasoning stands. You are still however completely missing the point that I have been trying to make.
I'm not going to respond to your meaningless political drivel. Not anymore. Now that I've responded to your pathetic attempts at logic, I can be done with that, too. I get your point -- you think maintaining a position purely out of political spite is acceptable, in the face of legitimate technical criticism. Cool story. Thank goodness that this kind of utter foolishness appears still to be in the minority.
My position is not one of political spite, and this last statement has further proved my point. That this is as far as the dialectic goes, because you are not acknowledging or countering my rebuttals.
