Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on July 09, 2015, 11:05:06 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 09, 2015, 10:49:51 PM

what comes first? the code or the economic theory? to me, it seems all the code monkeys trying to enforce Cripplecoin are just another play on the blockchain comes first theory where the coin is irrelevant. this is also demonstrated by their incessant focus on decentralization of full nodes while ignoring users. also demonstrated by their stubbornness in their position in spite of 75% support to inc block size over a number of polls.

they're wrong of course. for those of us who've been around for a long time and have witnessed the evolution of the altcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 spaces, it should be obvious what comes first. and that is, a bunch of geeks sit around a table and talk about what types of economic features should go into a coin to draw in as many investors and speculators as possible. this happens FIRST. then they go out and code it. this comes SECOND. this is what happened with Bitcoin as is clear in Satoshi's writings, the book of which i've read and studied for over 4.5 yrs now. the code is merely used to enforce the economic precepts.

i see non tech ppl around here and on Reddit get intimidated by devs into thinking they don't know what they're talking about when they voice economic concerns about how core dev is being handled. they are criticized and dismissed as if this is all about the tech. i say BULLSHIT. it's about a very important economic concept that's been around for thousands of years and that is SOUND MONEY. it's bigger than all of us put together. it's the human races first chance to have the most efficient form of sound money ever conceived of and created. if we don't get this one right it could be another hundred years before we get another chance. all the dev sounding bullshit we get from tvbcof, iCEBlow, gmax, kazukiPimp, MOA and TPTB is just about dev's gotta dev. so don't let them intimidate you, non techies!

I agree that the code is secondary to the desired functionality; I actually think most of the people you mentioned would agree on that, especially if pressed (meaning this is somewhat a problem of mental compartmentalization). There are arguments from the small-blockers that are purely about what would allow Bitcoin to succeed as sound money, and those are fine in this respect, but some of them also slip into this pitfall you are talking about of seeing the code as primary (Mircea Popescu being the extreme example) rather than as a means to an end.

With that in mind, I think it's important to call out whenever this fallacy is invoked. Often it is not explicitly stated, so it should be drawn out into the open to be swept away. Insofar as the debate revolves solely around what will allow Bitcoin to scale without making it more vulnerable, that is fine. We both happen to think that keeping blocks small is not going to be the best way to achieve the resilience Bitcoin needs, but as Greg might say, "smart people can disagree on this." What is inexcusable is mistaking the code for a sacred cow, and that does extend a bit into the notion that "the devs know best." They're experts at optimizing the existing code, not at sculpting robust economic incentive structures (except Satoshi, of course).

But your being politically correct and non confrontational by leaving out one major factor that is driving the debate under the hood. And that is Blockstream. They, like Bitcoin, are also about money. Except I'd argue, by crippling Bitcoin, they are about USD's.