Small blocksize increase should be done first and SegWit second

[keepdoing]

Unfortunately I don't think some people care about facts / options.  They care about keeping control. 

[CIYAM]

It is a pity that people want to worship Satoshi and don't recognise the mistakes that he made (little-endian numbers in txs being one of the worst).

Moore's law never applied to bandwidth which is the problem that Bitcoin has in regards to scaling (not storage or processing power).

[LiteCoinGuy]

It is a pity that people want to worship Satoshi and don't recognise the mistakes that he made (little-endian numbers in txs being one of the worst).

Moore's law never applied to bandwidth which is the problem that Bitcoin has in regards to scaling (not storage or processing power).

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

law-of-bandwidth

[pereira4]

Why is people comparing Bitcoin to visa? that's nonsense. VISA is a payment procesor of fiat, it's not money. Bitcoin is it's own money, as well processing the transactions of this very unique money. Its like comparing apples to oranges.

[keepdoing]

Why is people comparing Bitcoin to visa? that's nonsense. VISA is a payment procesor of fiat, it's not money. Bitcoin is it's own money, as well processing the transactions of this very unique money. Its like comparing apples to oranges.

I have Bitcoin.  I can't spend them directly easily at all.  So Coinbase has a Visa Debit card that links directly to my bitcoin account/wallet.  I can now purchase things directly out of my Bitcoin Wallet - ANYWHERE.  I've bought coffee.  I've bought gasoline, food, etc.

Dollar is money that interfaces with transactional capabilities offered by Visa.
Euro is money that interfaces with transactional capabilities offered by Visa.
....and Bitcoin is money that interfaces with transactional capabilities offered by Visa.

The current difference is that right now it is difficult to spend my Bitcoin without intermediary transaction assistance.  Not really a big deal.  But if Bitcoin wants to be spent without an intermediary, it needs to scale to be able to handle transactions like Visa.  That is why the comparison - because VISA is the transaction intermediary that currently links ALL Major currencies, including Bitcoin.

[CIYAM]

Nielsen's Law of Internet bandwidth states that:

    a high-end user's connection speed grows by 50% per year

Why is it that when people quote stuff they only quote the bit that serves their own point?

[Amph]

Why is people comparing Bitcoin to visa? that's nonsense. VISA is a payment procesor of fiat, it's not money. Bitcoin is it's own money, as well processing the transactions of this very unique money. Its like comparing apples to oranges.

i also see bitcoin as a payment processor, not only as a money, since it has his own circuit, which is the blockchain

so it can be comparable easily to anything that involve money, since it is a complete system

[Cuidler]

The current difference is that right now it is difficult to spend my Bitcoin without intermediary transaction assistance.  Not really a big deal.  But if Bitcoin wants to be spent without an intermediary, it needs to scale to be able to handle transactions like Visa.  That is why the comparison - because VISA is the transaction intermediary that currently links ALL Major currencies, including Bitcoin.

It is big deal, everytime you use intermediary, you pay some % to the intermediary. And VISA taking about 2% if Im correct, pretty huge % considering it might be possible to spend Bitcoin directly without the VISA need - thats the point of Bitcoin as I understand

[keepdoing]

The current difference is that right now it is difficult to spend my Bitcoin without intermediary transaction assistance.  Not really a big deal.  But if Bitcoin wants to be spent without an intermediary, it needs to scale to be able to handle transactions like Visa.  That is why the comparison - because VISA is the transaction intermediary that currently links ALL Major currencies, including Bitcoin.

It is big deal, everytime you use intermediary, you pay some % to the intermediary. And VISA taking about 2% if Im correct, pretty huge % considering it might be possible to spend Bitcoin directly without the VISA need - thats the point of Bitcoin as I understand

There will always be a fee.   Bitcoin is not fee free.  Bitcoin is not anonymous.  Bitcoin is not magical money that you won't have to pay taxes on.  It will be subservient to all the market forces that currently exist.  By the time Bitcoin is a global currency on the magnitute of the dollar, it will have all the oversight current currencies have.

The difference between Blockstream Vision & XT/Unlimited Vision is that Blockstream wants to make sure everyone has to have numbered identifiable accounts in Sidechain Bank Accounts in order to functionally use Bitcoin.  XT/Unlimited wants everyone to have the OPTION of either using a bank, using bitcoin as a link into current system, or holding your bitcoin yourself, or actually using your bitcoin yourself - directly Peer to Peer at all levels, even buying coffee.

I believe that as time passes and people begin to be more educated as to what is actually the Blockstream Vision - they will see that it aims for a much more manipulative & robust fee structure.   If you can control and limit the way Bitcoin is used, you can control the fees.  Historically I see that anytime a group can control a fee - they take advantage of that to raise those fees through the sheer power of exercise of that control.

Don't believe me?  Well, ASK YOURSELF..... How are the Blockstream Players acting now, just in the infancy of Bitcoin?  Because they stacked the Core Comitt deck with their people, they now control what paths are, and are not, accepted with Bitcoin.  They keep politically manipulating the system..... doing these headfake promises to raise blocksize (which is the majority concensus), but then they always eventually redirect/misdirect the conversation to one excuse or another as to never actually doing it.  Blockstream is using its control to exercise its power over Bitcoin Community.   

If you want to see the future of a thing, all you need to do is look at where it came from, and where it is.

Instead of using VISA, you'll be using LIGHTNING.... and you will be paying for it.

[keepdoing]

Here's another way to look at it.

In the current system, you can keep your cash in your bank accounts and they can track everything you do.  They can even "lock down" your cash and keep you from it.   But you can also get paid directly in actual physical cash, and spend it directly.  Someone can pay you in cash, and you can spend it, OR you can just stuff it under a mattress, or bury it in a pail in your backyard.   The downside to the current system is that whether it is in a bank, or stuffed under your mattress - it still isn't totally safe, because it can be manipulated and devalued through the Federal/Central Reserve Banks, crooked Mega Market forces etc.

In the current system, the historical hedge against this was Gold/Silver.  It always act as a hedge against these manipulations.  It is a central repository of value that is physical, can be personally possessed, and is universally recognized across country borders - convertible into any global currency.   The problem with Gold is that it is limited to use primarily as a store of value.  But it is not "Usable" as an actual day to day currency.

In the current system, there is also the "VISA" transaction network.  Visa acts as an electronic transaction database to allow people to move Cash/Currency around.  It's really just a database transactional system with fees.

ALL of these separate aspects come together to create the current system.  

Enter Bitcoin....

Bitcoin has the capability of being ALL of these things.  It can act as a Digital Gold, but it can also act as Cash.  It inherently has its own "VISA" transaction network.

But the only way you get ALL of this from the Bitcoin system, is to have a COMBINATION of larger blocks, and more processing power, and ALSO Sidechains.  This is the XT/Unlimited Solution.  Allow for it ALL!

Enter Blockstream Players.....  They just want Bitcoin to be "Gold" and "VISA" only - no spendable "Bitcoin Cash".  They want everything you do to be via an "Account" on a sidechain.  You'll be numbered & tracked.  Oh, you'll still be able to move larger quanitities of personal "Bitcoin Gold" around on the main chain.  But just like current real gold, it'll be big and clunky and hard to actually directly spend..... unless you eventually "launder" it back into the System of Sidechain Banks.  And those banks will be no different than the current banks and financial systems that exist today.  So in a Blockstream Vision world - nothing really changes.  In some ways it is worse than what we have now.

[franky1]

blockstream = bitinstant 2.0.. but instead of mtgox codes,bitstamp codes and btc-e codes they will use... liquid.

[DooMAD]

I'm still not convinced that Blockstream is the devil, but I can see how some people have reached that mindset in such a polarised discussion.  As no one has outlined any particular downside to simply throwing in all of the proposed solutions, LN, Segwit, and a small blocksize increase, can we not all just get behind that and do it now?  There's seemingly little point arguing over which one should come first or second, just get them all ready to go and get it all over and done with in a single fork.

[keepdoing]

I'm still not convinced that Blockstream is the devil, but I can see how some people have reached that mindset in such a polarised discussion.  As no one has outlined any particular downside to simply throwing in all of the proposed solutions, LN, Segwit, and a small blocksize increase, can we not all just get behind that and do it now?  There's seemingly little point arguing over which one should come first or second, just get them all ready to go and get it all over and done with in a single fork.

I don't understand what you don't understand.  There are NO plans for a Blocksize Increase.  Blockstream Players are blocking it.  THEY have the power to implement, or block implementation.  They are blocking it.  They have made it clear that with the untested vision of Segwit & LN - this is all that will be needed for years to come.

The ONLY way that a blocksize increase will happen is through a divisive fork.  As it stands, forces are lining up for a Fork War.  XT/Unlimited vs Blockstream/CoreDev.  Only hope of avoiding that war is for someone in CoreDev to grow a pair and make an intelligent decision.

PS.... just so there is clarity.... NOBODY I know has suggested that the solutions of Blockstream (Lightning for example) are evil.  NOBODY.  The only "evil" as you call it, is that Blockstream Players have hijaaked the governance system and are disallowing any idea that is not biased towards their vision.

[franky1]

I'm still not convinced that Blockstream is the devil, but I can see how some people have reached that mindset in such a polarised discussion.  As no one has outlined any particular downside to simply throwing in all of the proposed solutions, LN, Segwit, and a small blocksize increase, can we not all just get behind that and do it now?  There's seemingly little point arguing over which one should come first or second, just get them all ready to go and get it all over and done with in a single fork.

blockstream want their liquid coin to be pegged for bitcoin.. so in short term liquid is worth the same.. then by reading some of the proposals they want to do to bitcoin, they want to ruin bitcoin so that people will play with their liquid..

EG
ReplaceByFee
this means that without a signature anyone can edit the recipients funds..
this was proposed so that retailers that see a customers transaction can play around with that tx to change the values to ensure it has the highest fee to ensure the retailer gets paid.
the ideology is good as it means the retailer can fight a customer who tries to double spend.. the realism is that a retailer can leave the customers 'change' address empty.
.. i think you can see how this can be abused.

no block limit increase
by not doing block limit increases, but instead allowing their own altcoins to have such larger capacity, will further kill off bitcoins usability and desirability.

confidential transactions
by adding 2.5kb of data to a transaction they can hide the bitcoin value a customer will see.. this means it can literally hide how much you are sending to an address.. though some want more anonymity.. by adding it to bitcoin it will bloat the transaction. by making it so that there will only be < 400 transactions a block instead of the potential of ~4000
.. i think you can see how without upping the block limit, and then reducing the number of transactions allowed.. will hurt bitcoin

blockstream want their 'liquid' coins to eventually be worth $400+ without actually doing 7 years of mining and spending billions on electric to achieve it.. then kill off bitcoin so that it forces people to use their coins..

[DooMAD]

I'm still not convinced that Blockstream is the devil, but I can see how some people have reached that mindset in such a polarised discussion.  As no one has outlined any particular downside to simply throwing in all of the proposed solutions, LN, Segwit, and a small blocksize increase, can we not all just get behind that and do it now?  There's seemingly little point arguing over which one should come first or second, just get them all ready to go and get it all over and done with in a single fork.

blockstream want their liquid coin to be pegged for bitcoin.. so in short term liquid is worth the same.. then by reading some of the proposals they want to do to bitcoin, they want to ruin bitcoin so that people will play with their liquid..

EG
ReplaceByFee
this means that without a signature anyone can edit the recipients funds..
this was proposed so that retailers that see a customers transaction can play around with that tx to change the values to ensure it has the highest fee to ensure the retailer gets paid.
the ideology is good as it means the retailer can fight a customer who tries to double spend.. the realism is that a retailer can leave the customers 'change' address empty.
.. i think you can see how this can be abused.

no block limit increase
by not doing block limit increases, but instead allowing their own altcoins to have such larger capacity, will further kill off bitcoins usability and desirability.

confidential transactions
by adding 2.5kb of data to a transaction they can hide the bitcoin value a customer will see.. this means it can literally hide how much you are sending to an address.. though some want more anonymity.. by adding it to bitcoin it will bloat the transaction. by making it so that there will only be < 400 transactions a block instead of the potential of ~4000
.. i think you can see how without upping the block limit, and then reducing the number of transactions allowed.. will hurt bitcoin

blockstream want their 'liquid' coins to eventually be worth $400+ without actually doing 7 years of mining and spending billions on electric to achieve it.. then kill off bitcoin so that it forces people to use their coins..

I'm close to agreeing, but maybe just a touch more moderately.  It's fair to raise issues with any "features" like these containing glaring pitfalls, but the proposals like ReplaceByFee and Confidential Transactions will only find their way into circulation if the majority of nodes decide to run software containing them.  It's also fair to point out legitimate conflicts of interest with Blockstream, which I agree there are many.  But there's still a difference between conflict of interest and full blown conspiracy and I'm not sure we've reached that point just yet.  There's little difference between this conspiracy stance and the one where people were suggesting that Gavin and Mike were trying to "take over".  I never took that argument seriously, because it sounds crazy.  I'm not saying there aren't problems with Blockstream, as it does have certain insidious qualities, but maybe just tone it down a notch?

[keepdoing]

I'm still not convinced that Blockstream is the devil, but I can see how some people have reached that mindset in such a polarised discussion.  As no one has outlined any particular downside to simply throwing in all of the proposed solutions, LN, Segwit, and a small blocksize increase, can we not all just get behind that and do it now?  There's seemingly little point arguing over which one should come first or second, just get them all ready to go and get it all over and done with in a single fork.

blockstream want their liquid coin to be pegged for bitcoin.. so in short term liquid is worth the same.. then by reading some of the proposals they want to do to bitcoin, they want to ruin bitcoin so that people will play with their liquid..

EG
ReplaceByFee
this means that without a signature anyone can edit the recipients funds..
this was proposed so that retailers that see a customers transaction can play around with that tx to change the values to ensure it has the highest fee to ensure the retailer gets paid.
the ideology is good as it means the retailer can fight a customer who tries to double spend.. the realism is that a retailer can leave the customers 'change' address empty.
.. i think you can see how this can be abused.

no block limit increase
by not doing block limit increases, but instead allowing their own altcoins to have such larger capacity, will further kill off bitcoins usability and desirability.

confidential transactions
by adding 2.5kb of data to a transaction they can hide the bitcoin value a customer will see.. this means it can literally hide how much you are sending to an address.. though some want more anonymity.. by adding it to bitcoin it will bloat the transaction. by making it so that there will only be < 400 transactions a block instead of the potential of ~4000
.. i think you can see how without upping the block limit, and then reducing the number of transactions allowed.. will hurt bitcoin

blockstream want their 'liquid' coins to eventually be worth $400+ without actually doing 7 years of mining and spending billions on electric to achieve it.. then kill off bitcoin so that it forces people to use their coins..

I'm close to agreeing, but maybe just a touch more moderately.  It's fair to raise issues with any "features" like these containing glaring pitfalls, but the proposals like ReplaceByFee and Confidential Transactions will only find their way into circulation if the majority of nodes decide to run software containing them.  It's also fair to point out legitimate conflicts of interest with Blockstream, which I agree there are many.  But there's still a difference between conflict of interest and full blown conspiracy and I'm not sure we've reached that point just yet.  There's little difference between this conspiracy stance and the one where people were suggesting that Gavin and Mike were trying to "take over".  I never took that argument seriously, because it sounds crazy.  I'm not saying there aren't problems with Blockstream, as it does have certain insidious qualities, but maybe just tone it down a notch?

I must admit that the last sentence of Franky's post is something I hadn't considered.  But it is possible, and does make long term sense as an option that I would guess has at least been weighed by Blockstream players.  

So then to move on to the comments by DooMad - there is a very fine line between conflict of interest (which is simply an observational FACT regarding Blockstream involvement with Core Dev >>> Lightning/Liquid, and with Mike Hearn's involvement with XT>>>R3CEV/Banks - it just is what it is and it is obvious) and then to move that line just slightly to reach "Conspiracy Theory."  And regarding "conspiracy theory", it has a tendency to be assoiated with tinfoil hat nutjobs and nonsense - and YET, sometimes they really are "out to get you"  Or in this case.... to take their conflict of interest positions, and then conciously, and with determined effort attempt to leverage that for their own ends, in clear conflict with the greater good.

And honestly, I think that it really isn't that far of a leap given the situations - to make that jump.  And that relates to both Blockstream & Hearns.  I still have a gut feeling that Gavin really tries and wrestles with moral dilemnas, loyalty to the overall technology and vision etc.  I'm not sure how he is doing with that - but I give him a star for at least pretending to try in his own mind.

The SOLUTION would be that a middle road is taken.  Small (2mb) immediate increase - but with automatic increases, albeit at a slower more controlled pace than XT.  At the same time, full encouragement and kudos to Sidechain development to continue and grow.  Regarding SegWig, I'm all for it from what I can understand, just not as THE 100% immediate solution.  I defer to the technology experts on this matter.  If it can be implemented safely, and without negative consequences, and without creating any irreversible consequences - I say go for it, or anything else that improves and strengthens the overall technology.

The blocksize increase MUST happen in any rational solution - and I reference the clear concensus on this fact.  And even if you want to argue concensus, I still say that you cannot have a small group with clear conflict of interest making decisions that can so dramatically hinder the growth or possibilities inherent in the technology.  I also say that you must incorporate some sort of automated increase, because Bitcoin has grown up a bit.  It now plays in the world of global finance.  Global finance needs stability to survive.  It needs predictability.  You are not going to see mass adoption be embraced by those that can make it happen... in the current environment where there is even a remote possibility that you have small "Core" of biased and conflict challenged individuals that could destroy/hijaak/jeopardize the system at heir future whim.  So you have to at least establish a few years worth of stable and foreseeable path in the technology.  This would be HUGE, and would immediately free up investment time, money and resources to get to work.

Lastly - this middle of the road solution is actually the BEST path for Bitcoin, the most balanced path.  It allows Bitcoin to grow, but to allow it to do so in a more controlled fashion than XT.  The technology surrounding mining and node buildout can continue to parallel that growth at a reasonable pace.  That protects the decentralization.  And because there are smaller blocksize caps looming in stages, there is still enough emphasis and benefit put on sidechain solutions in order to keep main chain transactions manageable.

So everybody gets something.  The biggest winner is the technology itself.  It isn't choked and crippled, nad kept safe in this little controlled box (Blockstream Vision), and it isn't fed steroids and forced to grow in an unhealthy and forced manner (XT Vision).

It is sane.  It is rational.   And what is really really scary is that this clear and simple path can't find a way forward.  And right now.... I don't think you can blame this on Mike Hearn / XT anymore.

RIGHT NOW.... the blame is on Blockstream Players.  They alone hold the keys to this sane, intelligent middle road.

WILL THE REAL CORE/DEV PLEASE STAND UP?!?!?!

[LiteCoinGuy]

I'm still not convinced that Blockstream is the devil, but I can see how some people have reached that mindset in such a polarised discussion.  As no one has outlined any particular downside to simply throwing in all of the proposed solutions, LN, Segwit, and a small blocksize increase, can we not all just get behind that and do it now?  There's seemingly little point arguing over which one should come first or second, just get them all ready to go and get it all over and done with in a single fork.

i dont think they are the devil because they want bitcoin to succeed like all of us. but at the same time they give a shit about the majority of people (scalling bitcoin?!). they moved zero in their position. the smallest compromise would be 2MB - but not with some of these people (Peter Todd etc). that is not a good way to deal with other peoples opinions. even people like Jeff Garzik are fucked up...i guess that means alot.

[keepdoing]

I'm still not convinced that Blockstream is the devil, but I can see how some people have reached that mindset in such a polarised discussion.  As no one has outlined any particular downside to simply throwing in all of the proposed solutions, LN, Segwit, and a small blocksize increase, can we not all just get behind that and do it now?  There's seemingly little point arguing over which one should come first or second, just get them all ready to go and get it all over and done with in a single fork.

blockstream want their liquid coin to be pegged for bitcoin.. so in short term liquid is worth the same.. then by reading some of the proposals they want to do to bitcoin, they want to ruin bitcoin so that people will play with their liquid..

EG
ReplaceByFee
this means that without a signature anyone can edit the recipients funds..
this was proposed so that retailers that see a customers transaction can play around with that tx to change the values to ensure it has the highest fee to ensure the retailer gets paid.
the ideology is good as it means the retailer can fight a customer who tries to double spend.. the realism is that a retailer can leave the customers 'change' address empty.
.. i think you can see how this can be abused.

no block limit increase
by not doing block limit increases, but instead allowing their own altcoins to have such larger capacity, will further kill off bitcoins usability and desirability.

confidential transactions
by adding 2.5kb of data to a transaction they can hide the bitcoin value a customer will see.. this means it can literally hide how much you are sending to an address.. though some want more anonymity.. by adding it to bitcoin it will bloat the transaction. by making it so that there will only be < 400 transactions a block instead of the potential of ~4000
.. i think you can see how without upping the block limit, and then reducing the number of transactions allowed.. will hurt bitcoin

blockstream want their 'liquid' coins to eventually be worth $400+ without actually doing 7 years of mining and spending billions on electric to achieve it.. then kill off bitcoin so that it forces people to use their coins..

I'm close to agreeing, but maybe just a touch more moderately.  It's fair to raise issues with any "features" like these containing glaring pitfalls, but the proposals like ReplaceByFee and Confidential Transactions will only find their way into circulation if the majority of nodes decide to run software containing them.  It's also fair to point out legitimate conflicts of interest with Blockstream, which I agree there are many.  But there's still a difference between conflict of interest and full blown conspiracy and I'm not sure we've reached that point just yet.  There's little difference between this conspiracy stance and the one where people were suggesting that Gavin and Mike were trying to "take over".  I never took that argument seriously, because it sounds crazy.  I'm not saying there aren't problems with Blockstream, as it does have certain insidious qualities, but maybe just tone it down a notch?

I must admit that the last sentence of Franky's post is something I hadn't considered.  But it is possible, and does make long term sense as an option that I would guess has at least been weighed by Blockstream players.  

So then to move on to the comments by DooMad - there is a very fine line between conflict of interest (which is simply an observational FACT regarding Blockstream involvement with Core Dev >>> Lightning/Liquid, and with Mike Hearn's involvement with XT>>>R3CEV/Banks - it just is what it is and it is obvious) and then to move that line just slightly to reach "Conspiracy Theory."  And regarding "conspiracy theory", it has a tendency to be assoiated with tinfoil hat nutjobs and nonsense - and YET, sometimes they really are "out to get you"  Or in this case.... to take their conflict of interest positions, and then conciously, and with determined effort attempt to leverage that for their own ends, in clear conflict with the greater good.

And honestly, I think that it really isn't that far of a leap given the situations - to make that jump.  And that relates to both Blockstream & Hearns.  I still have a gut feeling that Gavin really tries and wrestles with moral dilemnas, loyalty to the overall technology and vision etc.  I'm not sure how he is doing with that - but I give him a star for at least pretending to try in his own mind.

The SOLUTION would be that a middle road is taken.  Small (2mb) immediate increase - but with automatic increases, albeit at a slower more controlled pace than XT.  At the same time, full encouragement and kudos to Sidechain development to continue and grow.  Regarding SegWig, I'm all for it from what I can understand, just not as THE 100% immediate solution.  I defer to the technology experts on this matter.  If it can be implemented safely, and without negative consequences, and without creating any irreversible consequences - I say go for it, or anything else that improves and strengthens the overall technology.

The blocksize increase MUST happen in any rational solution - and I reference the clear concensus on this fact.  And even if you want to argue concensus, I still say that you cannot have a small group with clear conflict of interest making decisions that can so dramatically hinder the growth or possibilities inherent in the technology.  I also say that you must incorporate some sort of automated increase, because Bitcoin has grown up a bit.  It now plays in the world of global finance.  Global finance needs stability to survive.  It needs predictability.  You are not going to see mass adoption be embraced by those that can make it happen... in the current environment where there is even a remote possibility that you have small "Core" of biased and conflict challenged individuals that could destroy/hijaak/jeopardize the system at heir future whim.  So you have to at least establish a few years worth of stable and foreseeable path in the technology.  This would be HUGE, and would immediately free up investment time, money and resources to get to work.

Lastly - this middle of the road solution is actually the BEST path for Bitcoin, the most balanced path.  It allows Bitcoin to grow, but to allow it to do so in a more controlled fashion than XT.  The technology surrounding mining and node buildout can continue to parallel that growth at a reasonable pace.  That protects the decentralization.  And because there are smaller blocksize caps looming in stages, there is still enough emphasis and benefit put on sidechain solutions in order to keep main chain transactions manageable.

So everybody gets something.  The biggest winner is the technology itself.  It isn't choked and crippled, nad kept safe in this little controlled box (Blockstream Vision), and it isn't fed steroids and forced to grow in an unhealthy and forced manner (XT Vision).

It is sane.  It is rational.   And what is really really scary is that this clear and simple path can't find a way forward.  And right now.... I don't think you can blame this on Mike Hearn / XT anymore.

RIGHT NOW.... the blame is on Blockstream Players.  They alone hold the keys to this sane, intelligent middle road.

WILL THE REAL CORE/DEV PLEASE STAND UP?!?!?!

Maybe what is needed is for someone to write up a petition?  I wonder if something like the above (reworded, tweeked, possibly with more technical specifics albeit limited for flexibility in final solution - but general enough in conceptualization) should be adopted?

It appears to me that an unbendable, unnegotiable situation currently exists.  Petitions can be a powerful force in these types of situations.   Hearns tried the other path.... blunt force alternative.  Right now we have what looks like American Politics.  Far Left vs Far Right, and nobody in the middle speaking for common sense.  Perhaps a Petition, if crafted to a sane middle path, could be that voice?