As I've told you before, your responses are by and large insufficient. In most cases, you are merely saying "I disagree..." or "I think that..." or "I don't think that..." I cannot refute an opinion if you provide nothing to support it. Your discussion of orphaned blocks is completely absent of facts or proof; it is just tortured logic. When your arguments repeatedly boil down to mere opinion rather than logic based in facts, there is little point in arguing. My points still stand.
I have given arguments to support my position you are just not acknowledging my arguments and in the specific cases you have quoted I have already made the arguments which you have not refuted.
And seriously, I just explained how spam is already defined by the Core software and how it can be individually set. And still it's impossible to identify spam? This isn't about fees; it's about blockchain and UTXO bloat and maximizing efficiency/minimizing unnecessary throughput. You think it's more important to forego other methods of scaling so that we have to subsidize people who want to send cents, fractions of cents? Subsidize spam like Coinwallet? Not interested. You need to lose this one-track mindset.
I still do not think that you can always differentiate between spam and other low cost transactions on the blockchain, what you consider spam could also be very meaningful from a different persons perspective.
And political commentary, by definition, cannot address technical flaws, nor the issue of ignoring engineering standards. The premise that politics can override technical knowledge and expertise is absolutely unacceptable. If that is the case, then by definition, breaking the protocol is acceptable for political reasons. WTF is the point of supporting bitcoin, then, if its procotol is constantly at the whims of a political majority? Why do you think "consensus" was established as a principle in the first place?
Consensus in Bitcoin is an aspect of the democratic and anarchistic nature of Bitcoin, furthermore Bitcoin is at the whims of the economic majority whether you like it or not. Decentralization for instance is very much a political principle for political reasons, if in the future this principle is at stake then it would be justified to fork away regardless of whether you are in the minority or majority.
Your arguments about governance, again, fall on deaf ears. It's meaningless hot air. Show me alternative implementations with widespread support. No go? Build them yourself. I don't see anything here to talk about. Again, you say you think the BIP process is a problem? Then provide your primer on what the governance model is supposed to look like. Bring it to the devs, see if anyone supports anything you are saying. Because if the only major code contributors on your side are Gavin and Hearn, you've already lost. What I see from you is all complaints, no action.
I have already told you what the governance model is supposed to be, the economic majority decides by choosing between alternative implementations of Bitcoin. I also already told you that I am looking forward to seeing more alternatives implemented which I would most likely support instead of BIP101 especially if they represent a middle ground between these two extreme positions.
Bitcoin is a form of democracy
I have already responded to most of the [technical] issues you have raised there and you do not acknowledge my counter arguments because they are political in nature.
I do not think that BIP101 threatens network security, and the t[h]reat of a political civil war should not sufficient reason to not support a contentious fork.
I think that fifty one percent is enough to justify a fork
miners will not be effected by an increase in the block size
On a fundamental level, I completely disagree with the first four statements. (The last is a technical point which you have not sufficiently proven.) You believe bitcoin is a democracy, and that 51% (aka a 51% attack through argument) is sufficient to hard fork. I believe your position is at odds with the ideas of "valid blocks" and the "consensus mechanism" stated in the whitepaper.
Bitcoin has democratic aspects build in to the protocol level. The economic majority deciding is a form of democracy whether you like it or not.
You've basically conceded that a civil war with multiple surviving blockchains is not only acceptable -- but it almost seems as if you think it's an optimal solution. If you think bitcoin is worth fracturing along the lines of something so insignificant as block size, this is another fundamental impasse.
I think multiple blockchains with the same genesis block will be inevitable in the long term, which is different to saying that I think it is the optimal solution. I also do not think that this blocksize debate is worth fracturing Bitcoin over, unless enough people really believe strongly that we should have one megabyte for ever more or less, which I do not believe is the case. However if that is what the majority of the people want then who are we to stand in their way, we actually could not stand in their way, we can inspire reason by discussing like we are here and hope for the best. These aspects of Bitcoin you might find troubling but that is the reality of the Bitcoin protocol today.
And re XT being buggy? Yes, it is. That's what happens with little to no peer review. Irresponsible to release the code as such. One recent example:
I was refering to BIP101 not XT, which can be implemented by itself over Core or even a bigblocksonly version of XT.
More importantly, though, BIP101 breaks the consensus mechanism and introduces a scaling regime with completely unknown conditions.
BIP101 does not break the consensus mechanism, seventy five percent consensus is consistent with Bitcoin, since fifty one percent consensus would be as well. The conditions under increased adoption and scaling can not be known even under any of the BIP proposals there are far to many variables including people who play an important part in how Bitcoin functions and who are impossible to predict with absolute certainty. I still do not understand why you think I am not on your side, essentially as far as I understand it you do not want the blocks to become consistently full over a long period of time, then we are in agreement that is really the main thing that I want out of all of this while preserving decentralization and financial freedom.
