I am not trying to insult Bitcoin. You cannot deny that SegWit did not appear as it would become reality until miners signaled for NYA. Further, a significant portion of the community is fully behind S2X. See above. The box is yet to be opened.
Yeah? Spin all that you like jbreher.. that is not what happened.
Bullshit. It is exactly what happened. Signaling support for segwit was anemic. It was not until the NYA agreement and signaling of S2X that segwit amassed any provable support. That is what occurred, and it is clearly within the record.
Notice how jbreher just comes here to troll, and then leave.
WTF are you talking about? I am here, I was here, and I will continue to be here. I have read each and every post in this thread, participating regularly, going back to April of 2013. I ain't going nowheres.
He doesn't really give a shit what the latest Bitcoin fork du jour is, as long as it's not the current core
Well, that is not true in the least. For instance, I'd rather Bitcoin Gold or GPU or whatever they're calling it today never saw the light of day (which it indeed may not). However, as far as satoshi's original principles are concerned, the calculus is:
BCH >> S2X > S1X
due to increased capacity not choking off adoption.
Thus the reason why he shilled for XT/BU
Inasmuch as the word 'shilling' means 'accepting payment for advocacy', I did not shill for either XT nor BU. I did support each in turn, as each at the time seemed the best positioned to break the logjam of stupid centrally-planned production quotas limiting capacity and thereby stifling adoption.
then got his BCH with 8X but still isn't happy,
Incorrect. I am quite happy with BCH. As it has capacity exceeding current demand. Just as Bitcoin had from the time satoshi created it until about 18 months ago when the new membership of core allowed a stupid production quota to limit capacity and stifle adoption. I'm a little disappointed with the level of adoption so far, but I am patient. It will come around.
and now discarding it just like Ver/Wu/Wright
Incorrect again. See above. BCH >> S2X > S1X
and has moved on to promoting 2X.
Wrong yet again. I am not promoting S2X. Indeed, If I have anything I would like to promote, it remains Bitcoin Cash. I am not promoting S2X; I am correcting misstatements.
And when that fails, I guess he'll just move on to shilling for the next contentious fork?
Nope. I will continue to advocate for Bitcoin Cash. However, if another fork challenges S1X, and has the properties I deem worthy (i.e., no or relaxed stupid centrally-planned production quotas limiting capacity and stifling adoption; and no other new fatal missteps), then I will indeed advocate that over S1X.
The trolls like him
The word 'troll' conveys someone who posts simply to irritate. I do not. I post to advocate for that which I believe is the right path forward.
will never stop,
Well, you finally got one right. I am unlikely to stop. My financial future is intertwined with the success of Bitcoin. Which is why I advocate for a Bitcoin I believe has the most solid future.
because they hate a decentralized, non-corp controlled Bitcoin
100% backwards.
with the core team currently at the helm.
Well, there is an element of truth to this. While I acknowledge that Core is very strong on the technical front, their knowledge of economics, sociology, and game theory is woefully inadequate. Worse yet, they can't see that this is the case.
But in review, it is quite clear that you have absolutely incorrect assumptions about me, my motivations, and my actions. Perhaps you should stop hyperventilating long enough to think.
The point remains that any 'changing of the guard' would be an abdication*. And hence, would not be merely an effort to overthrow the current devs with ones more malleable.
You mean: Core would abdicate by refusing to code for a project (S2X) that they don't subscribe to.
*Much as we all abdicated our consensus-determining (i.e., mining) power years ago.
You mean: we abdicated by exiting the arms race for mining.
Actually, these are different actions
Agreed. I was merely drawing an analogy. But both of them involve giving up a held power.
we, the users giving up mining - was more or less unavoidable, given the financial and existential investment in becoming a pro miner.
I don't think that is true. Who here still mines? Show of hands? I know there are some here that mine on a limited scale.
But more to the point, there was nothing preventing each of us from jumping in and mining. Sure, it seems an insurmountable expense today (but is it really? what about the small scale miners in existence?) but at the dawn of the pro miner era, there were no pro miners. Or IOW, when the mining gets tough, the tough get pro. Yes, we abdicated.
I want to understand the ultimate reason why you support your claim. What do you expect the normal user could gain from something like S2X?
As I have been saying for literally years, the stupid centrally-planned production quota that limits capacity is stifling adoption. I expect S2X (in comparison to S1X) to allow double the number of transactions per second, per hour, per day. Therefore reenabling use cases that have been obsoleted by Cores insane Raspberry Pi fetish. More use cases = more usability. Pretty simple calculus really. Oh - and lower fees besides.
It ain't Bitcoin Cash, but it's double the goodness of S1X.
Besides, we've shown that bigger blocks are not a problem. Why the obstinance on the part of Core? I think they're merely afraid of losing face.
Poll
