Quote from: davout on March 17, 2015, 01:43:11 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on March 17, 2015, 01:38:46 PM

Don't back down, R2D221, you're absolutely right. Davout said himself that he thinks bitcoin is "perfect as it is and doesn't need fixing", so he can't then turn around and say he's not supporting a permanent 1mb block. It's not your fault he's a weasel and openly contradicts himself.

I said "it doesn't need fixing".
I didn't say "it'll never need fixing".

Your reading skills, they do need fixing.

Quote from: davout on March 17, 2015, 01:36:35 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on March 17, 2015, 01:17:06 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on March 17, 2015, 12:06:05 PM

If wumpus thinks blocks should be full, then I'd like to see his reasoning. Gavin has outlined his stance with his blocksize economics and scalability roadmap posts. A continuous stream of full blocks isn't something we've tried before and we need to see a really convincing argument to justify attempting it.

Quote from: davout on March 17, 2015, 12:48:18 PM

Gavin gets it wrong. Big deal.
You know, there's a reason in business, why it's usually not the code-monkeys who get to make strategic decisions.

So there's no reasoning or justification? Just an opinion? Thought as much.

Looks like you missed it the first time it was posted: http://fr.anco.is/2015/gavineries/

You're using wumpus' comments to defend your view and I'm asking if there's anything else posted by wumpus to explain those comments. I want to see his reasoning as to why blocks should be full. Your reading skills need fixing.