VeritasSapere---it's obvious to anyone reading that you have ignored nearly everything i wrote and simply continued to repeat your opinions as if they are valid responses. merely writing a response is not sufficient to prevail in a debate. you show no respect for the practice of debate and you thrive off of fallacies (which i have pointed out several times) and arguments from repetition instead of addressing the points directed at you. i've continually pointed out these dishonest tactics, yet you continue to use them. there are plenty of examples, but here is one:
This is simply just not true and you just stating this also does not make it true. I have not ignored what you have said. You have also not pointed out any fallacies, if this was a debate I could claim victory. I prefer to treat these discussions more as a dialectic however, as opposed to a debate. In a dialectic we are both right and we are both wrong, through the process of philosophical discourse we can both reach a synthesis of our believes which would represent a more true understanding.
what makes an open source project decentralized is a lack of centralized control. again, as gavin and hearn showed us, no one has centralized control. that is true now, it is true with a billion code forks. get over it. this is a non-issue. as i said earlier, an open source project is decentralized by definition---prove me wrong.
That decentralization and centralization exists on a spectrum already proves you wrong. It is not either decentralized or not, that is a oversimplification of the situation.
Whether they exist "on a spectrum" doesn't address the argument that an open source project is on one extreme of that spectrum. stating that there is a difference between "centralized" and "decentralized" is not an argument, let alone does it prove me wrong.
You are again misrepresenting my argument. Just because a project is open source it does not mean that it is therefore on the extreme end of the spectrum of decentralization. Therefore just because a project is open source it does not end all debate on the degree of decentralization that such a project possesses. This is obviously a flawed argument and you simply repeating this without acknowledging my response does not prove it wrong. I have even mentioned Proof of Work as another factor on top of open source which makes Bitcoin even more decentralized then other open source projects and which makes measuring decentralization more complex and nuanced.
more importantly, my argument was that an open source project is decentralized. since you disagree
I have never said that an open source project is not decentralized, which is different to saying that decentralization and centralization are not on a binary scale.
addressing my point involves proving yours, as you are continually suggesting that development in regards to Core can characterized by concentration of power. since no developer has any power, authority or control to force any economic participant to do anything, i'd ask that you prove that claim in accordance with common usage. merely stating that some people have a more respected opinion than others is not proof that they have power, authority or control to force any economic participant to do anything.
You are again here completely ignoring my arguments, I have argued that influence is a form of power. I can give you examples of this.
The Pope of the catholic church has massive power, but his greatest power derives not from being the head of state or of being in control of great wealth, his greatest power derives from the influence he has over more then a billion Catholics. Another example could be great political leaders of the past like Gandhi, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King these people rose from places of insignificance politically speaking purely because of the influence they garnered among other people. In the Bitcoin world today a person that is comparable to this is Andreas Antonopoulos, if he threw his hat into either side of the fork it would garner more support because of the respect and influence he commands. Andreas Antonopoulos has been tactfully neutral in this regard over the course of this blocksize debate, he does however support increasing the blocksize.
Like I said before I have studied politics so for you to say that influence is not a form of power, I do find rather untenable. To make this clear I will quote the first paragraph of Wikipedia on politics:
Politics (from Greek: πoλιτικός politikos, definition "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and resources within a given community (a usually hierarchically organized population) as well as the interrelationship(s) between communities.
as indicated here, your arguments are just deflections and statements of your opinion. this is true of virtually every response you have made here.
This is simply not true, maybe this is what you need to tell yourself in order to ignore reason.
since my first post in this thread, you've made no effort to respond to my arguments
This is absolutely false, I have gone through great effort to respond to your arguments, my most recent response certainly is evidence of this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12774393#msg12774393it's quickly becoming clear that you are not interested in a reasoned, logical discussion, but rather to establish the appearance that your (and XT's) position is legitimate.
You saying this does not make it true, people can read this for themselves and decide which position has the most merit. I did also clearly state in my previous post that my favored proposal is BIP100 not BIP101, however that I will continue to support BIP101 until BIP100 is implemented regardless of who does the implementation.
