Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

[DooMAD]

What hypocrisy! Such nonsense!

The BIP101 leaders started the movement of stifling productive technical discussion in exchange for political posturing. Your intention is nice and all but you have this completely backward. The onus was always on you to provide proofs of the technical merits of BIP101. It failed. Maybe you can take a last shot at it but lemme say chances are not on your side.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  Straight away it's "political posturing" and I have to try to fight the urge to go on the offensive.  It's entirely possible to express that belief in a less pejorative manner if you try.  People seem to take issue with the way the BIP101 leaders launched their proposal.  Why is it immediately an illicit and suspect act to confer with mining pools to see how they react to it?  If you had written a proposal of your own, would you not have bothered to consult with them to see if anyone would actually support it first?  Sounds like common sense to me.  Would it not be fairer to say that while you don't approve of the manner in which they chose to consult with the miners, it was helpful in getting their proposal off the ground.  And while you might perceive it to be a "power grab", you recognise that others might see it in a more innocent light?  But again, this is just discussing the personalities and not the actual issue of blocksize and doesn't really get us anywhere, so moving on.

I see BIP101 as a simple and straightforward solution to an issue I perceive with capacity, but concede that there is a possibility that it could potentially jeopardise decentralisation in future if left unchecked.  However, I understand and recognise that you see BIP101 primarily as a threat to decentralisation and see less of an issue with capacity.  So the question is, what in your mind wouldn't be a threat to decentralisation while still conceding some ground on providing a little more capacity?  What compromise can we move towards?  Can we find some common ground in BIP100 or upal's BIP1xx proposal?  Introducing a dynamic aspect where the blocksize can be increased or decreased based on what the network is handling sounds reasonable.  Is that something you would find more acceptable than a preemptive and continuous increase?

Doesn't that sound more constructive than "hypocrisy" and "nonsense"?

[knight22]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about they thing but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

Only a simple mind like yours would believe Bitcoin is a product to be sold to "people on the street".

You're a clueless noob

It's either this or a little niche experiment and no more.

[brg444]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about they thing but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

Only a simple mind like yours would believe Bitcoin is a product to be sold to "people on the street".

You're a clueless noob

It's either this or a little niche experiment and no more.

Are people on the streets using gold, SDRs, derivatives? You obviously have no idea what constitutes an economy. To use a Mircea quote:

The belief itself may be a case of "everything appears a nail to the man holding a hammer", in the sense that people who have never interracted with any other aspect of economy besides the supermarket counter may genuinely imagine that's what economy is. Still, that makes no difference.

[brg444]

What hypocrisy! Such nonsense!

The BIP101 leaders started the movement of stifling productive technical discussion in exchange for political posturing. Your intention is nice and all but you have this completely backward. The onus was always on you to provide proofs of the technical merits of BIP101. It failed. Maybe you can take a last shot at it but lemme say chances are not on your side.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  Straight away it's "political posturing" and I have to try to fight the urge to go on the offensive.  It's entirely possible to express that belief in a less pejorative manner if you try.  People seem to take issue with the way the BIP101 leaders launched their proposal.  Why is it immediately an illicit and suspect act to confer with mining pools to see how they react to it?  If you had written a proposal of your own, would you not have bothered to consult with them to see if anyone would actually support it first?  Sounds like common sense to me.  Would it not be fairer to say that while you don't approve of the manner in which they chose to consult with the miners, it was helpful in getting their proposal off the ground.  And while you might perceive it to be a "power grab", you recognise that others might see it in a more innocent light?  But again, this is just discussing the personalities and not the actual issue of blocksize and doesn't really get us anywhere, so moving on.

I see BIP101 as a simple and straightforward solution to an issue I perceive with capacity, but concede that there is a possibility that it could potentially jeopardise decentralisation in future if left unchecked.  However, I understand and recognise that you see BIP101 primarily as a threat to decentralisation and see less of an issue with capacity.  So the question is, what in your mind wouldn't be a threat to decentralisation while still conceding some ground on providing a little more capacity?  What compromise can we move towards?  Can we find some common ground in BIP100 or upal's BIP1xx proposal?  Introducing a dynamic aspect where the blocksize can be increased or decreased based on what the network is handling sounds reasonable.  Is that something you would find more acceptable than a preemptive and continuous increase?

Doesn't that sound more constructive than "hypocrisy" and "nonsense"?

What isn't constructive is your naive attitude. You seem blatantly unaware of how things unfolded and how we got here. This mess you denounce is the result of Gavin & Mike's actions. Now somehow we're to blame because we call bullshit?

[knight22]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about they thing but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

Only a simple mind like yours would believe Bitcoin is a product to be sold to "people on the street".

You're a clueless noob

It's either this or a little niche experiment and no more.

Are people on the streets using gold, SDRs, derivatives? You obviously have no idea what constitutes an economy. To use a Mircea quote:

The belief itself may be a case of "everything appears a nail to the man holding a hammer", in the sense that people who have never interracted with any other aspect of economy besides the supermarket counter may genuinely imagine that's what economy is. Still, that makes no difference.

Most people live from paycheck to paycheck and don't use / hold any of these. Not sure which planet you live on.

[knight22]

What hypocrisy! Such nonsense!

The BIP101 leaders started the movement of stifling productive technical discussion in exchange for political posturing. Your intention is nice and all but you have this completely backward. The onus was always on you to provide proofs of the technical merits of BIP101. It failed. Maybe you can take a last shot at it but lemme say chances are not on your side.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  Straight away it's "political posturing" and I have to try to fight the urge to go on the offensive.  It's entirely possible to express that belief in a less pejorative manner if you try.  People seem to take issue with the way the BIP101 leaders launched their proposal.  Why is it immediately an illicit and suspect act to confer with mining pools to see how they react to it?  If you had written a proposal of your own, would you not have bothered to consult with them to see if anyone would actually support it first?  Sounds like common sense to me.  Would it not be fairer to say that while you don't approve of the manner in which they chose to consult with the miners, it was helpful in getting their proposal off the ground.  And while you might perceive it to be a "power grab", you recognise that others might see it in a more innocent light?  But again, this is just discussing the personalities and not the actual issue of blocksize and doesn't really get us anywhere, so moving on.

I see BIP101 as a simple and straightforward solution to an issue I perceive with capacity, but concede that there is a possibility that it could potentially jeopardise decentralisation in future if left unchecked.  However, I understand and recognise that you see BIP101 primarily as a threat to decentralisation and see less of an issue with capacity.  So the question is, what in your mind wouldn't be a threat to decentralisation while still conceding some ground on providing a little more capacity?  What compromise can we move towards?  Can we find some common ground in BIP100 or upal's BIP1xx proposal?  Introducing a dynamic aspect where the blocksize can be increased or decreased based on what the network is handling sounds reasonable.  Is that something you would find more acceptable than a preemptive and continuous increase?

Doesn't that sound more constructive than "hypocrisy" and "nonsense"?

What isn't constructive is your naive attitude. You seem blatantly unaware of how things unfolded and how we got here. This mess you denounce is the result of Gavin & Mike's actions. Now somehow we're to blame because we call bullshit?

Maybe you should ask why Gavin and Mike did such action if you want to dig deeper to the root problem.

[poeEDgar]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about what they think but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

Interesting. Which company manufactured bitcoin? Pretty sure that six years ago, the bitcoin "network" consisted of one, and later, a few people. So you are telling me that adoption to this point was due to some corporate advertising campaign? Which one?

They may have deep pockets, but if their plan is to push an agenda that is at odds with the majority of devs and miners, good luck. They'd be better off buying up the hashing power required to subvert consensus.

[brg444]

Most people live from paycheck to paycheck and don't use / hold any of these. Not sure which planet you live on.

Exactly. So how exactly do you suggest all those poor people is somehow going to make Bitcoin valuable.

Bitcoin will be powerful beyond reach if it attracts only the gold market. Your obsession with catering to the masses is going to be your downfall.

You are delusional. Bitcoin is not going to gain value by mainstream consumer usage. It is going to gain value by attracting all the capital in the world looking for a deflationary, censorship-resistant store of wealth. Think outside of the box for a second and stop acting like Bitcoin is goddamn startup for god sake

[brg444]

What isn't constructive is your naive attitude. You seem blatantly unaware of how things unfolded and how we got here. This mess you denounce is the result of Gavin & Mike's actions. Now somehow we're to blame because we call bullshit?

Maybe you should ask why Gavin and Mike did such action if you want to dig deeper to the root problem.

They did this because they are corporate shills pandering to banking and VC interests

[knight22]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about what they think but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

Interesting. Which company manufactured bitcoin? Pretty sure that six years ago, the bitcoin "network" consisted of one, and later, a few people. So you are telling me that adoption to this point was due to some corporate advertising campaign? Which one?

They may have deep pockets, but if their plan is to push an agenda that is at odds with the majority of devs and miners, good luck. They'd be better off buying up the hashing power required to subvert consensus.

I don't think asking for a clear path of scalability should goes against the majority of miners and devs. It is just logic do to so to attrack investors at large. Putting a time frame for decision making =!  to do it wrecklessly.  Every company is doing so.

[poeEDgar]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about what they think but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

Interesting. Which company manufactured bitcoin? Pretty sure that six years ago, the bitcoin "network" consisted of one, and later, a few people. So you are telling me that adoption to this point was due to some corporate advertising campaign? Which one?

They may have deep pockets, but if their plan is to push an agenda that is at odds with the majority of devs and miners, good luck. They'd be better off buying up the hashing power required to subvert consensus.

I don't think asking for a clear path of scalability should goes against the majority of miners and devs. It is just logic do to so to attrack investors at large. Putting a time frame for decision making =!  to do it wrecklessly.

This is not an adequate argument. If there is a clear path for scaling, it is not apparent at this time. Nobody gives a shit about attracting investors -- that is not the purpose of bitcoin. We need to keep bitcoin robust and secure. And making an arbitrary time limit for protocol changes that threaten security is destructive.

[knight22]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about what they think but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

Interesting. Which company manufactured bitcoin? Pretty sure that six years ago, the bitcoin "network" consisted of one, and later, a few people. So you are telling me that adoption to this point was due to some corporate advertising campaign? Which one?

They may have deep pockets, but if their plan is to push an agenda that is at odds with the majority of devs and miners, good luck. They'd be better off buying up the hashing power required to subvert consensus.

I don't think asking for a clear path of scalability should goes against the majority of miners and devs. It is just logic do to so to attrack investors at large. Putting a time frame for decision making =!  to do it wrecklessly.

This is not an adequate argument. If there is a clear path for scaling, it is not apparent at this time. Nobody gives a shit about attracting investors -- that is not the purpose of bitcoin. We need to keep bitcoin robust and secure. And making an arbitrary time limit for protocol changes that threaten security is destructive.

There is nothing destructive about elaborating a strategy. What is destructive is having none.

[brg444]

There is nothing destructive about elaborating a strategy. What is destructive is having none.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[poeEDgar]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about what they think but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

Interesting. Which company manufactured bitcoin? Pretty sure that six years ago, the bitcoin "network" consisted of one, and later, a few people. So you are telling me that adoption to this point was due to some corporate advertising campaign? Which one?

They may have deep pockets, but if their plan is to push an agenda that is at odds with the majority of devs and miners, good luck. They'd be better off buying up the hashing power required to subvert consensus.

I don't think asking for a clear path of scalability should goes against the majority of miners and devs. It is just logic do to so to attrack investors at large. Putting a time frame for decision making =!  to do it wrecklessly.

This is not an adequate argument. If there is a clear path for scaling, it is not apparent at this time. Nobody gives a shit about attracting investors -- that is not the purpose of bitcoin. We need to keep bitcoin robust and secure. And making an arbitrary time limit for protocol changes that threaten security is destructive.

There is nothing destructive about elaborating a strategy. What is destructive is having none.

Please see the bolded.

[knight22]

There is nothing destructive about elaborating a strategy. What is destructive is having none.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Having no clear strategy from Core devs is the exact reason why all this is happening.

[DooMAD]

What hypocrisy! Such nonsense!

The BIP101 leaders started the movement of stifling productive technical discussion in exchange for political posturing. Your intention is nice and all but you have this completely backward. The onus was always on you to provide proofs of the technical merits of BIP101. It failed. Maybe you can take a last shot at it but lemme say chances are not on your side.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  Straight away it's "political posturing" and I have to try to fight the urge to go on the offensive.  It's entirely possible to express that belief in a less pejorative manner if you try.  People seem to take issue with the way the BIP101 leaders launched their proposal.  Why is it immediately an illicit and suspect act to confer with mining pools to see how they react to it?  If you had written a proposal of your own, would you not have bothered to consult with them to see if anyone would actually support it first?  Sounds like common sense to me.  Would it not be fairer to say that while you don't approve of the manner in which they chose to consult with the miners, it was helpful in getting their proposal off the ground.  And while you might perceive it to be a "power grab", you recognise that others might see it in a more innocent light?  But again, this is just discussing the personalities and not the actual issue of blocksize and doesn't really get us anywhere, so moving on.

I see BIP101 as a simple and straightforward solution to an issue I perceive with capacity, but concede that there is a possibility that it could potentially jeopardise decentralisation in future if left unchecked.  However, I understand and recognise that you see BIP101 primarily as a threat to decentralisation and see less of an issue with capacity.  So the question is, what in your mind wouldn't be a threat to decentralisation while still conceding some ground on providing a little more capacity?  What compromise can we move towards?  Can we find some common ground in BIP100 or upal's BIP1xx proposal?  Introducing a dynamic aspect where the blocksize can be increased or decreased based on what the network is handling sounds reasonable.  Is that something you would find more acceptable than a preemptive and continuous increase?

Doesn't that sound more constructive than "hypocrisy" and "nonsense"?

What isn't constructive is your naive attitude. You seem blatantly unaware of how things unfolded and how we got here. This mess you denounce is the result of Gavin & Mike's actions. Now somehow we're to blame because we call bullshit?

Again, there seems to be little diplomacy in your stance.  Immediately and without compromise, 100% of the blame is shifted onto two developers as if they were the only ones with a mind of their own in all this.  There isn't even the slightest chance in your view that the other developers may have had even the smallest role to play in the deadlock that lead to the schism?  This is why others attack your view, you won't even budge an inch from your assertions and for all your talk of "stifling productive technical discussion", you always have to shift the argument back to how certain personalities involved are somehow inherently bad for daring to have an opposing view.  Less talk about the personalities, more about the issue.

To reiterate, what in your mind wouldn't be a threat to decentralisation while still conceding some ground on providing a little more capacity?  What compromise can we move towards?  Is a dynamic blocksize preferable to a static preset increase?  

[knight22]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about what they think but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

Interesting. Which company manufactured bitcoin? Pretty sure that six years ago, the bitcoin "network" consisted of one, and later, a few people. So you are telling me that adoption to this point was due to some corporate advertising campaign? Which one?

They may have deep pockets, but if their plan is to push an agenda that is at odds with the majority of devs and miners, good luck. They'd be better off buying up the hashing power required to subvert consensus.

I don't think asking for a clear path of scalability should goes against the majority of miners and devs. It is just logic do to so to attrack investors at large. Putting a time frame for decision making =!  to do it wrecklessly.

This is not an adequate argument. If there is a clear path for scaling, it is not apparent at this time. Nobody gives a shit about attracting investors -- that is not the purpose of bitcoin. We need to keep bitcoin robust and secure. And making an arbitrary time limit for protocol changes that threaten security is destructive.

There is nothing destructive about elaborating a strategy. What is destructive is having none.

Please see the bolded.

Then I guess you are happy by the actual situation.

[poeEDgar]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about what they think but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

Interesting. Which company manufactured bitcoin? Pretty sure that six years ago, the bitcoin "network" consisted of one, and later, a few people. So you are telling me that adoption to this point was due to some corporate advertising campaign? Which one?

They may have deep pockets, but if their plan is to push an agenda that is at odds with the majority of devs and miners, good luck. They'd be better off buying up the hashing power required to subvert consensus.

I don't think asking for a clear path of scalability should goes against the majority of miners and devs. It is just logic do to so to attrack investors at large. Putting a time frame for decision making =!  to do it wrecklessly.

This is not an adequate argument. If there is a clear path for scaling, it is not apparent at this time. Nobody gives a shit about attracting investors -- that is not the purpose of bitcoin. We need to keep bitcoin robust and secure. And making an arbitrary time limit for protocol changes that threaten security is destructive.

There is nothing destructive about elaborating a strategy. What is destructive is having none.

Please see the bolded.

Then I guess you are happy by the actual situation.

Happy? No. Panicking about the apocalypse of full blocks a year from now? No.

Concerned about how scaling will affect network security? Yes.

Let's talk about it.

[knight22]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about what they think but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

Interesting. Which company manufactured bitcoin? Pretty sure that six years ago, the bitcoin "network" consisted of one, and later, a few people. So you are telling me that adoption to this point was due to some corporate advertising campaign? Which one?

They may have deep pockets, but if their plan is to push an agenda that is at odds with the majority of devs and miners, good luck. They'd be better off buying up the hashing power required to subvert consensus.

I don't think asking for a clear path of scalability should goes against the majority of miners and devs. It is just logic do to so to attrack investors at large. Putting a time frame for decision making =!  to do it wrecklessly.

This is not an adequate argument. If there is a clear path for scaling, it is not apparent at this time. Nobody gives a shit about attracting investors -- that is not the purpose of bitcoin. We need to keep bitcoin robust and secure. And making an arbitrary time limit for protocol changes that threaten security is destructive.

There is nothing destructive about elaborating a strategy. What is destructive is having none.

Please see the bolded.

Then I guess you are happy by the actual situation.

Happy? No. Panicking about the apocalypse of full blocks a year from now? No.

Concerned about how scaling will affect network security? Yes.

Let's talk about it.

I understand what you mean but on the other side there are poeple with money at stack that are concerned about 1 mb blocks being full. Ignoring concerns of others by thinking yours are more important is not the way to have a dialogue and achieving consensus.

[poeEDgar]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about what they think but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

Interesting. Which company manufactured bitcoin? Pretty sure that six years ago, the bitcoin "network" consisted of one, and later, a few people. So you are telling me that adoption to this point was due to some corporate advertising campaign? Which one?

They may have deep pockets, but if their plan is to push an agenda that is at odds with the majority of devs and miners, good luck. They'd be better off buying up the hashing power required to subvert consensus.

I don't think asking for a clear path of scalability should goes against the majority of miners and devs. It is just logic do to so to attrack investors at large. Putting a time frame for decision making =!  to do it wrecklessly.

This is not an adequate argument. If there is a clear path for scaling, it is not apparent at this time. Nobody gives a shit about attracting investors -- that is not the purpose of bitcoin. We need to keep bitcoin robust and secure. And making an arbitrary time limit for protocol changes that threaten security is destructive.

There is nothing destructive about elaborating a strategy. What is destructive is having none.

Please see the bolded.

Then I guess you are happy by the actual situation.

Happy? No. Panicking about the apocalypse of full blocks a year from now? No.

Concerned about how scaling will affect network security? Yes.

Let's talk about it.

I understand what you mean but on the other side there are poeple with money at stack that are concerned about 1 mb blocks being full. Ignoring concerns of others by thinking yours are more important is not the way to have a dialogue and achieving consensus.

Ah, but 1MB blocks are not full. And there are many concerns, held by many stakeholders, to be discussed. I don't believe I am ignoring the concerns of others at all. I, and many others have quite a lot of money at stake. Indeed, I am trying hard in the face of a lot of dishonest arguments to have a real discussion.