Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)

[valiz]

You people are wasting your time arguing with Veritas. He will continue with his nonsense no matter how many times you counter his "arguments". The most effective way to oppose him would be to hire a similar person to follow and reply to all his posts.

I don't understand why these huge block shills don't try to persuade the chinese miners with their populist propaganda. Let's say they dumb down 90% of us and we go with their populism - still XT/UL/Classic/Hugeblock/Moonfork would need support from the miners to fork off. So why the efforts present here on this forum?

[Fatman3001]

...

Read up, hdbuck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Maybe you'll use your head next time before you start hurling stupidity at people.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini.

Ok, so what you took from what I wrote was that you should start quoting fascist dictators?

[facepalm]

[hdbuck]

...

Read up, hdbuck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Maybe you'll use your head next time before you start hurling stupidity at people.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini.

Ok, so what you took from what I wrote was that you should start quoting fascist dictators?

[facepalm]

Go back sucking up on Coinbase//MIT popsicle.

The sooner you and your masters fork off tho, the better for bitcoin.

[Fatman3001]

<>
In Orwellian slave-think, "conspiracy theories" is a euphemism for "cannot possibly be true, so I'll ignore it".
<>

George Orwell (Real name: Eric Arthur Blair[stein]) is a Jew. Orwell has often visited Communist meetings and was pro-Stalin. https://shadowmasterminds.wordpress.com/george-orwell-a-jew/
And I ain't too sure about you, either.

I actually applaud him for dragging Orwell into this.

I also seem to remember an episode of QI where Alan Davis used a similar defence against Stephen Fry.

Alan: Everyone said Einstein was a nutter at first, you know
Stephen: They said that about a lot of nutters as well

[btcusury]

<>
In Orwellian slave-think, "conspiracy theories" is a euphemism for "cannot possibly be true, so I'll ignore it".
<>

George Orwell (Real name: Eric Arthur Blair[stein]) is a Jew. Orwell has often visited Communist meetings and was pro-Stalin. https://shadowmasterminds.wordpress.com/george-orwell-a-jew/
And I ain't too sure about you, either.

So because he was Jewish and/or pro-Communist he had nothing interesting to say and therefore the term "Orwellian" that we have adopted from "1984" should not be used? Great logic bro.

You people are wasting your time arguing with Veritas. He will continue with his nonsense no matter how many times you counter his "arguments". The most effective way to oppose him would be to hire a similar person to follow and reply to all his posts.

I'd say the most effective way to expose (not so much "oppose") him is to assemble the strongest evidence and construct a clear case that showcases how improbably it is that he is just a regular clueless follower/fanboy.

[johnyj]

The only way to truly determine whether big blocks or reduced utility will kill bitcoin is to run the damned experiment.

It is not possible to do any kind of test on test net, because the most important thing we want to observe from a change is its economical impact or its value (if bitcoin worth 0, no one cares about how brilliant its technology is, and it will be useless), this can only be done on live traffic

But because bitcoin is the only meaningful cryptocurrency with enough serious traffic, you can only run the test on bitcoin live traffic, which means you have to reach consensus first. A hard fork is inflation and will kill bitcoin's biggest promise of limited supply and will crash its value, thus will not be accepted by any rational participant

So I think the best test is first let 1MB block fill up, and see what happens, how many people complain and how is each one impacted. If there is no real serious impact or people find work around for their problem, then 1MB can stay for a while. If there are some serious issues popping up, then it proves that 1MB is not enough, so you can raise the limit and everyone is convinced

However, if you start to test with a large block size before 1MB limit was reached, then you would never have the chance to test 1MB full block at later time, and if 1MB is really a brilliant and agile solution, you just forever missed the chance to test it

[blunderer]

<>
In Orwellian slave-think, "conspiracy theories" is a euphemism for "cannot possibly be true, so I'll ignore it".
<>

George Orwell (Real name: Eric Arthur Blair[stein]) is a Jew. Orwell has often visited Communist meetings and was pro-Stalin. https://shadowmasterminds.wordpress.com/george-orwell-a-jew/
And I ain't too sure about you, either.

So because he was Jewish and/or pro-Communist he had nothing interesting to say and therefore the term "Orwellian" that we have adopted from "1984" should not be used? Great logic bro.

Which part of "with Jews, you lose" don't you get?
Go ahead, keep thinking you're so clever, keep getting brainwashed in Jew schools by insidious Jew books full of Jew lies. Oh, you really pierced the veil now, bro, you really got a handle on The Truth!

Stay glued to those lying pages, while fake Orgone Trucks sit right outside your window, chemtrailing air into poisonous Mind Control Gas.
Sheep.

[Fatman3001]

...

Read up, hdbuck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Maybe you'll use your head next time before you start hurling stupidity at people.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini.

Ok, so what you took from what I wrote was that you should start quoting fascist dictators?

[facepalm]

Go back sucking up on Coinbase//MIT popsicle.

The sooner you and your masters fork off tho, the better for bitcoin.

Sure, 'cause no one can freely disagree with an excellent mind such as yours.

[btcusury]

About OP discussion, no wonder here is no analysis of top big blocks shills at all, because they just worship small blocks without rational reasons behind, thus most lacking analytical skills at all.

It just shows how disconnected with reality the OP'er has become. This is a side effect of living under a censoring regime. When you only get to see one side of an argument, you start to believe that it is the only narrative.

That's very true, yes, but the interesting phenomena we are witnessing here is that one side of the argument are seemingly completely closed to any new input. Surely many are mindless followers who still watch MSM (i.e. people with a need to be told what to do who go with initial impressions of what feels best and then listen only to confirmatory sources, because they have unknowingly lost the ability to think for themselves), of course, but some seem far too sophisticated in their understanding and writing. Your "Confirmed Gavinista" is reflective of this closed mindset.

Mostly it's just amusing that people around here like to think of themselves as crypto-anarchists, but only until someone disagrees.  Then they swiftly turn into crypto-fascists and start whining about "contentious issues" that shouldn't be discussed and attempting to justify stifling debate about it and calling people "shills".  You're about as anarchistic as the average teenager, but with slightly less of a spine.  

That's a premature assumption you're making. Obviously it should be discussed, and is being discussed. The point is the observation that one side, or at least the most visible posters of one side, amazingly do not accept new input at all, and just keep reiterating the same false arguments ad nauseum.

Are you operating under the assumption that the "bad guys" are sitting idly by while decentralization undoes their millennia-old consolidation of centralized control over resources? Or do you not even believe there are any "bad guys" and that everything is as the MSM says?

I'm watching this "Small block militia" for some month and this is their master-piece.

Funnily I never found them really discussing reasons about the problems with an increase of the blocklimits (I know that those problems exist, but I'd like to discuss them). Sometimes they answer questions, but if you discuss it, they leave. Usually their habbit is not to discuss, but to start personal attacks, insults, doxxings, character assasination. Their mindset seems to be best characterized by a slavish submissive to authority and hate for everyone whose worldview expands their very narrow perspective on bitcoin and everything else.

You must be joking. The strongest statists among the core devs are the big-blockers! Gavin, Hearn, Garzik, etc. Do some research before you make ridiculous assumptions.

[blunderer]

^^Saurian Mind Control Gas kicking in.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

About OP discussion, no wonder here is no analysis of top big blocks shills at all, because they just worship small blocks without rational reasons behind, thus most lacking analytical skills at all.

It just shows how disconnected with reality the OP'er has become. This is a side effect of living under a censoring regime. When you only get to see one side of an argument, you start to believe that it is the only narrative.

That's very true, yes, but the interesting phenomena we are witnessing here is that one side of the argument are seemingly completely closed to any new input. Surely many are mindless followers who still watch MSM (i.e. people with a need to be told what to do who go with initial impressions of what feels best and then listen only to confirmatory sources, because they have unknowingly lost the ability to think for themselves), of course, but some seem far too sophisticated in their understanding and writing. Your "Confirmed Gavinista" is reflective of this closed mindset.

I supposse you are serious with this.

It's very strange. If I look at this thread and at all other threads my picture is exactly the opposite.

[shinohai]

I'm afraid you noobs and authority cravers handle bitcoin to USG and corporations for the Big Brother Finale. (FASCIST! )

Bitcoin is about freedom, but freedom is not about democracy.
It is about the individual (as in the individual must be able to mine, run a full node, access the blockchain and cryptographic signatures by himself).
Not the illusion of the greater number of stupid 'marketed' sheeple precipitating the rest into the abyss.

Bitcoin consensus mechanism fights exactly this by preventing social/populist coup over its protocol.

You are stupid if you think any fork attempt will be successful as the previous ones lamely failed and with not even as much people involved as of now.

Bitcoin's protocol is not some incorporated IOS that has to be upgraded every two weeks^tm.

This is the core of why I don't agree with a lot of the proposals out there. They seek to weaken Bitcoin's cryptography in some way or pass off complete signatures as not necessary. Without a fully verified node you may as well be using pebbles recorded in the rockchain,

You do realize that Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) was a major section in Satoshi's original white paper right?
It was part of the Bitcoin vision from day 1.  So where you do get this shit from?

SPV doesn't weaken the cryptography at all.  You're spouting nonsense.

I have no issues with SPV wallets in general. It is possible to use one that verifies off your own personal server.

It's not nonsense at all. I sense a redditard. http://therealbitcoin.org/ml/btc-dev/2015-December/000184.html

Just because it is appropriate for the bitcoin foundation (an institution) to run a full node doesn't mean
every individual user has to...which was the whole point of Satoshi's SPV...So yeah, it IS nonsense.

I'm not going to argue further with yet another brain-damaged BIP101 supporter, as you most certainly are.

Relevant quote from #bitcoin-assets today http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=12-01-2016#1368164

See also: http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/

Good luck with your scamcoin.

[DooMAD]

Mostly it's just amusing that people around here like to think of themselves as crypto-anarchists, but only until someone disagrees.  Then they swiftly turn into crypto-fascists and start whining about "contentious issues" that shouldn't be discussed and attempting to justify stifling debate about it and calling people "shills".  You're about as anarchistic as the average teenager, but with slightly less of a spine.  

That's a premature assumption you're making. Obviously it should be discussed, and is being discussed. The point is the observation that one side, or at least the most visible posters of one side, amazingly do not accept new input at all, and just keep reiterating the same false arguments ad nauseum.

Are you operating under the assumption that the "bad guys" are sitting idly by while decentralization undoes their millennia-old consolidation of centralized control over resources? Or do you not even believe there are any "bad guys" and that everything is as the MSM says?

Yes, it's being discussed despite the best efforts of some to prevent it.  There's nothing premature whatsoever about my statement.  There is a clear and concerted effort being made to sweep certain ideas under the carpet as they're somehow perceived as dangerous to the status quo.  And people on both sides are repeating disproven and dishonest arguments.  There are still people referring to alternative clients as altcoins when this is fundamentally misleading, or insinuating that releasing a client that proposes a change to the protocol is tantamount to an act of sedition.  This is entirely at odds with an open source project where anyone is free to modify the code as they please.  It's also unfounded to claim that anyone who disagrees with your view must somehow be brainwashed by the mainstream media.  

[johnyj]

Can't belive this thread is hotter than that Wall observer thread

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

George Orwell (Real name: Eric Arthur Blair[stein]) is a Jew. Orwell has often visited Communist meetings and was pro-Stalin. https://shadowmasterminds.wordpress.com/george-orwell-a-jew/
And I ain't too sure about you, either.

blunderer is a bigot? Who knew....

[tl121]

Mining nodes are all already in data centres. We are already far past this point, so I would not consider that to be a good reason not to increase the blocksize. Miners can not "raise the fee" they simply just choose what transactions to include and not to include, collectively this creates a free market for fees. With an arbitrarily small block size limit it has more in common with a centrally planned economy.

This is back to Peter Todd's famous question: If it is already centralized then why make it worse

The relay network that miners are using right now are a perfect example of now we are relying on private company to provide the bitcoin network necessary service. Following this route, in future all the mining nodes will operate on a private company's network, so that a couple of phone call can shut them down right away

Small block size does not preventing you from inventing fee-free transaction services off-chain. In fact, limited at 1MB or limited at 8MB is the same effect
because bitcoin is never going to scale indefinitely. So, if you sooner or later have to limit the block size, then why not do it now when bitcoin core software is still relatively light weight. It is the direction that matters, not parameters

You can be damn sure if this private company started doing something the miners didn't like it would be replaced, probably within one or two days.  As I understand it, the code is all open source and it's just a matter of running similar code at new data centers and then reconfiguring some IP addresses in .conf files.

[btcusury]

For me there is a clear difference between shilling and having an opinion about something and expressing that opinion strongly. A shill blends into the environment, but the
majority of the posts are concentrated on obtaining one specific goal. You only need to browse such a users post history to isolate them. The shill will troll some threads and
post something with little value... but when it comes to his/her main goal, they will post extensively and with vigor. The OP is 100% correct in saying that these people needs to
be identified and labelled... but it's not going to be easy to differentiate between a shill and someone who feel strongly about a subject. Many of these people joined in,
because they felt strongly about what they perceived as censorship and not really anything to do about block sizes.  

Yep, which would be part of the agenda itself: to make it seem as if there is a contentious debate and that this contentious debate is being censored.

Bitcoin is and can be many different things to different people, there are many coders and engineers who think that we can scale Bitcoin, therefore I think that we should, even if Core thinks that we should not, their reasons for not doing so remain ideological and I have a distinctly different vision for Bitcoin which also happens to align closer to the original vision of its founder as well. I am sure that there are many people that did originally sign up for this original vision and do not appreciate this bait and switch.

And this is why you are called a liar. The Core people do believe (understand) that Bitcoin needs to scale (hence, you know, the Scaling Bitcoin conferences?), just not in the discredited reckless ways you insist on baselessly continuing to promote, while ignoring all new information and arguments thrown at you.

I appreciate most of the work done by Core but I do not want a technocratic group of engineers and coders to dictate to us what Bitcoin should become and what its economic policy should be, this should be determined by the market itself instead. I rather have the engineers remind us ideologues of what is possible so that we can then pursue our dreams to create a better world.

Yeah, you'd rather have a technocratic group of social engineers, which is what the people calling themselves "government" are, to dictate to you what to do... yet at the same time you talk about being an "ideologue" whose dream it is to create a better world!

[...]
I personally am slightly for bigger blocks but am aware that there might be serious risks with hardforking to bigger blocks. But the "style" of the small block militia drives me away from supporting core, blockstream and small blocks.

Problem is... you aren't the only one.  I personally am a bit taken back by the current situation.  Bitcoin has such promise.  If a few reasonable changes were made, it COULD become a global currency, probably THE global currency.  Honestly, it has everything going for it - a huge infrastructure buildout, pretty solid user base, good name recognition, almost 10 years of solid debugging and real world lab experience, and yet..... why the heck am I getting this impending sense of doom lately?

The "impending sense of doom lately" comes from the XT people who falsely insisted that there is an urgent need to increase the max block size. Quoting iCEBREAKER's brilliant observation again, "Their Big Lie is that Bitcoin was created to replace commercial banking, not central banking (as if the Genesis Text was about $2 ATM fees instead of TBTF bailouts)." The people behind it happen to be committed statists (believers in "authority" and collectivism and moral relativism).

I am totally serious.  I am totally shocked that this little Blockstream Player / Core-Dev group is so blind to what they are squandering, and at how strongly rebellion is brewing.  Right now it would not take much for everyone to start running for the exits, or towards another solution. And we KNOW that other solutions are being worked on.

Honestly I am pissed off and disgusted, and I am honestly starting to keep my eyes on the exit door at all times.  And it is sad, totally sad that this is happening.

Exit door? It sounds like you are treating Bitcoin purely as an investment. Boo hoo, you might lose some digital tokens that you take as representing fiat tokens, how scary! It's the invention of the decentralized ledger that is the threat to the banksters and "the powers that were" (but never really were), not Bitcoin.

@Lauda

I appreciate we establish a civlized, intelligent conversation about arguments, not insult, in a thread that was made to insult.

While we do it, someone let the hooligans out which yell from the sideline

I don't care about such kind of childish hatefull chorus, but I have a hard time to understand why you and your co-moderators tolerate that these people rampage your forum and damage the reputation of knowledged small blockers like you and the core developers.

I was really really shocked that this quote from brg444 was not deleted:

The leaders of this governance coup are now nowhere to be seen, Mike Hearn having revealed themselves as the villain he always was is now gone working full time for the bankers he had probably always been in cahoots with. Gavin Andresen has taken residency over at a forum populated by notorious scammer cypherdoc and dangerous, sociopath, charlatan Peter R. After previously advocating for what was deemed a "safe" immediate increase to 20MB, he is now figuratively begging on his knees for 2MB "compromise" only for the sake of forcing a contentious hard fork on Bitcoin in order to undermine the trust of investors in what projects to be the most important year for Bitcoin yet.

I moderate myself a small bitcoin forum in germany, and I was told so often that I'm too soft against trolls. But I'd never ever allow some nobody with too much time to hooligan social media and to insult and polemize people which, if you like them or not, have done a lot for bitcoin and have brought out interesting research.

Ooooohhh, so shocking that no censorship is applied to free speech but discernment of dishonest shills is. This PC mentality you espouse is what every single authoritarian control system requires to get anywhere at all. It's very interesting how you are substituting "hooligan" for "Nazi", but that's what your German unconscious mind is thinking, isn't it? Just for the fun of it and to keep it short, I'll say this one time: Almost everything you have been told about WWII is a lie. I think you, as with many Germans today, have been indoctrinated into always trying to be so over-the-top "nice" ("tolerant") to people that you are easily taken for a ride by anyone pretending to be nice.

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to.  People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions.  I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.
[...]
I crave the opposite of authority, you're the one who thinks they can tell other people what kind of software they can and can't run to suit your own agenda.  You're the authoritarian fascist here.  I say let the chips fall where they may, because I embrace a free and open market.  I don't fear it as you do.  Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run.  If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals.

So you openly admit that you're a statist (i.e. an involuntaryist, an advocate of slavery), but you call other people "authoritarian" WTF?

George Orwell (Real name: Eric Arthur Blair[stein]) is a Jew. Orwell has often visited Communist meetings and was pro-Stalin. https://shadowmasterminds.wordpress.com/george-orwell-a-jew/
And I ain't too sure about you, either.

btcusary is a bigot? Who knew....

Wow, this is clear proof of sAt0sHiFanClub's dishonesty. Compare his post to my original post here.

[VeritasSapere]

For now, dump your evidence and/or observations (or even just the case you feel showcases the most obvious shilling) in this thread! Preferrably concisely summarized, though the more detailed and hyperlinked the better.

To my mind, the most obvious case is VeritasSapere. What is the probability that this guy is not employed full-time by a group whose goal it is to destroy Bitcoin? The username itself seems like a clue.

There is no evidence of shilling on either side of the debate, so what is the point in per suing this line of argument? Accusing other people of being shills without evidence is just ad hominem and not conductive towards productive discussion.

The purpose of this thread was/is to assemble the evidence.

There is no evidence, I was simply pointing this out, it is an exercise in futility.

It does the opposite of strengthening your cause since you are just revealing that your rationality is weak by supporting such "conspiracy theories".

In Orwellian slave-think, "conspiracy theories" is a euphemism for "cannot possibly be true, so I'll ignore it".

This is why I put it into quotation marks. There certainly are conspiracies and valid theories about conspiracies, the term is often misconstrued to mean what you are referring to, however i did intend to use this word in the negative sense, since you are formulating a conspiracy theory without evidence, it is better to focus on conspiracies that you can prove if that is where you want to direct your energy.

I could just as easily accuse certain small block proponents of being shills for either blockstream or governments. I will not do that however since accusing people of such things without evidence is wrong and it is more productive to stick to rational discussion, logic, reason and what can be known instead of futilely focusing on the unknowable.

Unknowable, huh? I would not have gone beyond "unprovable". It can be known with some degree of certainty by apophatic inquiry.

Apophatic inquiry? Like deductive reosoning right? You would still not be able to proof that I am a shill based on that method of inquiry, because there is no evidence. I suppose I prescribe more to rationalism in terms of epistemology.

I can explain what my alias means. It is latin, I am also a history buff as well as having a political philosophy background. Veritas means truth and it was also the name of the main character in the movie "V for Vendetta", the mask that he wears has now become a symbol for the cypherpunk movement and anonymous movement as well. Sapere is a bit harder to pin down in terms of meaning, but it can be described as knowledge, or a thirst for knowledge. I took it from an older phrase which is "Sapere Aude". Which means "dare to be wise", which has significant meaning in terms of enlightenment and philosophical thinking. So you could translate my alias to mean something along the lines of "A thirst for true knowledge".

Well, let's then test whether that is true. You obviously have a lot of spare time (or is it work time?), given your posts on this forum, so certainly you have time to increase your "true knowledge" regarding "political philosophy" by researching the information from other researchers who also have "a thirst for true knowledge". So let's start with these two:

Mark Passio Interviews Larken Rose - The Religion of Statism  (a very short video)

Apply your "dare to be wise" philosophy so that you can come to understand the true nature of "politics", "government", and "authority", so that you may stop operating under ridiculously false premises such as...

Since I do think that the block size limit should be increased, and right now I have to choose between Core or BIP101, I choose BIP101, even if it a choice between the lesser of two evils. This is a case of political realism. In political thought the lesser of two evils is often the pragmatic reality we have to accept in order to even justify the existence of the state, and we should not think that 90% consensus is practical considering how democracies actually and practically function.

LOL! Why the hell would you want to "justify the existence of the state", especially in these terms, unless you are a proud, ultra-dogmatic, foaming-at-the-mouth slave?

First of all you are quoting a very old post, we have several alternatives now so what I said there about BIP101 is no longer relevant, I support Bitcoin Unlimited myself presently for a two megabyte blocksize limit.

Just because I know how the state is justified it does not mean that is my position on the subject. You need to understand something before you can criticize it, after all.

If you have studied political philosophy you would know that this is how the state is often justified. Think of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan and his state of nature, or John Locks response in his treatise on government. Further on in John Stuarts Mills writings On Liberty. The idea is that government always represents a sacrifice or compromise of our freedom, philosophically the only form of governance which has true freedom is anarchism. I understood this before I discovered cryptocurrency. I still think that good government is possible, its just that it requires a highly enlightened civilization and culture in order for it be functional. Cryptocurrency has changed my ideological objective you could say since it has made possible what was previously impossible, in regards to political theory.

This has changed my ideology over the last year, so I presently describe myself as a crypto anarcho libertarian. The goal is anarchism (freedom), this possibility is enabled through crypto (technology), and the practical strategy is libertarianism where we shrink the government down over a long period of time until it possibly ceases to exist completely, most likely in more then a century from now.

I would further add that it is actually irrelevant what my own personal political philosophy is in regards to this discussion.

... and join the human race.

Yet you are the the one attempting to dehumanize me.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Wow, this is clear proof of sAt0sHiFanClub's dishonesty. Compare his post to my original post here.

d'oh!

I  do apologise - genuine mistake. I will update that post now.

I could say many things about you, but bigot would not be one of them...

[DooMAD]

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to.  People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions.  I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.
[...]
I crave the opposite of authority, you're the one who thinks they can tell other people what kind of software they can and can't run to suit your own agenda.  You're the authoritarian fascist here.  I say let the chips fall where they may, because I embrace a free and open market.  I don't fear it as you do.  Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run.  If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals.

So you openly admit that you're a statist (i.e. an involuntaryist, an advocate of slavery), but you call other people "authoritarian" WTF?

That was an attempt at mockery, seeing as people like hdbuck, icebreaker and a few of the other hardcore MP fanboys seem to enjoy calling everyone with even the slightest left-wing leaning a statist.  And the jab remains that I still respect the free market more than fake libertarian pretenders like them. 

Which is the more authoritarian attitude in your mind?

a) Unilaterally changing network parameters is a threat to the network and should be derided / ridiculed / dismissed / etc.

or

b) Any user can unilaterally change any network parameters as they wish because it's an open and permissionless system.

I'm of the opinion that hdbuck's view, "a)", is authoritarian.  My view, "b)", is the complete opposite of authoritarian.  Thus concludes another edition of "why do I always have to spell it out for people like they're not all there upstairs?"