Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already.

[Lauda]

C++
explicit limit vs consensus limit
consensual vs controversial
reading code not social distraction
definition of hypocrisy
who is spoon-feeding him and why they do it

You've nicely described yourself. Focusing on ad hominem won't do you any good nor win any arguments.

The main forums (this one, and /r/bitcoin) both support Core as the only 'official' bitcoin wallet. Most users probably don't even know about Classic/Unlimited/XT, and if they do, they don't know they are just as 'official' as Core.    

It is the main and most advanced Bitcoin implementation. There's nothing "official" regarding that.

Basically, this header needs to be more neutral, and also include links to the latest Classic, Unlimited and XT clients. As well as a link to a page that explains the difference in a fair and factual way.      

No. This is a privately owned forum, and as such, does not "need" to do anything.

[franky1]

seems someone preferred to avoid the topic to adhom about an adhom

now then.

the current ACTUAL debate is consensual '2base-4mbweight' buffer increase by EVERYONE in the community releasing an implementation. so that fans of any implementation can all happily stick with their favourites and still have the open choice to decentrally vote in or out of a safe increase of capacity, while not hindering segwit either, or having to change to another "brand"
yes this means the quadratics doomsday is also a moot point because segwit still gets to work

[zimmah]

C++
explicit limit vs consensus limit
consensual vs controversial
reading code not social distraction
definition of hypocrisy
who is spoon-feeding him and why they do it

You've nicely described yourself. Focusing on ad hominem won't do you any good nor win any arguments.

The main forums (this one, and /r/bitcoin) both support Core as the only 'official' bitcoin wallet. Most users probably don't even know about Classic/Unlimited/XT, and if they do, they don't know they are just as 'official' as Core.    

It is the main and most advanced Bitcoin implementation. There's nothing "official" regarding that.

Basically, this header needs to be more neutral, and also include links to the latest Classic, Unlimited and XT clients. As well as a link to a page that explains the difference in a fair and factual way.      

No. This is a privately owned forum, and as such, does not "need" to do anything.

Yeah it's a privately owned forum, but it's the main forum for bitcoin, and it would be good for the benefit of all bitcoin users if this forum remained neutral.   

The fact that this forum is not neutral is very worrying, is this is already a first step in centralizing bitcoin.   

and then they claim Core is trying to keep bitcoin decentralized. What a joke.

[Lauda]

Yeah it's a privately owned forum, but it's the main forum for bitcoin, and it would be good for the benefit of all bitcoin users if this forum remained neutral.   

I disagree with your view of "main forum" here. It surely is the most used forum, however you aren't creating any arguments for your case actually. If users wanted a more "neutral" environment (whatever this is supposed to mean), they'd simply start using one. That's how these things usually work, nobody is forcing you to stay nor leave.

The fact that this forum is not neutral is very worrying, is this is already a first step in centralizing bitcoin.   

No, it's not worrying at all. Besides, this isn't the thread here. You should probably keep this consistent to the thread that you've made in Meta.
This should be about a potential fork (although we drifted away from time to time).

[franky1]

the current ACTUAL debate is consensual '2base-4mbweight' buffer increase by EVERYONE in the community releasing an implementation. so that fans of any implementation can all happily stick with their favourites and still have the open choice to decentrally vote in or out of a safe increase of capacity, while not hindering segwit either, or having to change to another "brand"
yes this means the quadratics doomsday is also a moot point because segwit still gets to work

[Lauda]

the current ACTUAL debate is consensual '2base-4mbweight' buffer increase by EVERYONE in the community releasing an implementation. so that fans of any implementation can all happily stick with their favourites and still have the open choice to decentrally vote in or out of a safe increase of capacity, while not hindering segwit either, or having to change to another "brand"
yes this means the quadratics doomsday is also a moot point because segwit still gets to work

I honestly have read this post three times by now, and still fail to understand what you've wanted to say with it. Not because of "technicalities", but because the flawed construct of all those sentences. You should really rephrase everything.

[franky1]

the current ACTUAL debate is consensual '2base-4mbweight' buffer increase by EVERYONE in the community releasing an implementation. so that fans of any implementation can all happily stick with their favourites and still have the open choice to decentrally vote in or out of a safe increase of capacity, while not hindering segwit either, or having to change to another "brand"
yes this means the quadratics doomsday is also a moot point because segwit still gets to work

I honestly have read this post three times by now, and still fail to understand what you've wanted to say with it. Not because of "technicalities", but because the flawed construct of all those sentences. You should really rephrase everything.

in short
core releasing 0.13.2a with 1base 4weight AND releasing 0.13.2b with 2base 4weight

that way core fanboys dont have to defect away from core to get real capacity, they can choose freely while remaining with core dream team
that way the community as a whole have an open choice without having any bias
that way you can finally be happy of your dream team having code for all the features the community have been requesting.
that way you can chill out your doomsdays because core is no longer vetoing the 2mb base option, to cause controversy

[RawDog]

the current ACTUAL debate is consensual '2base-4mbweight' buffer increase by EVERYONE in the community releasing an implementation. so that fans of any implementation can all happily stick with their favourites and still have the open choice to decentrally vote in or out of a safe increase of capacity, while not hindering segwit either, or having to change to another "brand"
yes this means the quadratics doomsday is also a moot point because segwit still gets to work

I honestly have read this post three times by now, and still fail to understand what you've wanted to say with it. Not because of "technicalities", but because the flawed construct of all those sentences. You should really rephrase everything.

in short
core releasing 0.13.2a with 1base 4weight AND releasing 0.13.2b with 2base 4weight

that way core fanboys dont have to defect away from core to get real capacity, they can choose freely while remaining with core dream team
that way the community as a whole have an open choice without having any bias
that way you can finally be happy of your dream team having code for all the features the community have been requesting.
that way you can chill out your doomsdays because core is no longer vetoing the 2mb base option, to cause controversy

now with change of guard at Blockstream, maybe the pro fork people can get a little more momentum going and
'get 'er done'

[davis196]

Hard forks are good.  Stop crying.  They allow two discrete paths to flourish and see which works best.  Too freaking bad if some of your juice gets stuck on the 'bad' chain.  On fork day, you've got equal action on both chains.  Make good decisions thereafter.  No harm, no foul.  

Let's do it NOW!!!!

Fork it already.

Who`s crying?I don`t understand.

Are there people who complain about the hard fork?

What`s the point of this thread?

[RawDog]

Hard forks are good.  Stop crying.  They allow two discrete paths to flourish and see which works best.  Too freaking bad if some of your juice gets stuck on the 'bad' chain.  On fork day, you've got equal action on both chains.  Make good decisions thereafter.  No harm, no foul.  

Let's do it NOW!!!!

Fork it already.

Who`s crying?I don`t understand.

Folks are saying a hard fork is 'dangerous'.  It is only dangerous for the undesirable prong.