Make all the grandiose claims and populist appeals you wish. Like you, they have no power here.
The Gavinistas will continue to discover what it means to attack a system that is defensible, diffuse, diverse, and resilient.
I hope these teachable moments will educate them on the principles of Bitcoin Sovereignty!
The Gavinistas will continue to discover what it means to attack a system that is defensible, diffuse, diverse, and resilient.
I hope these teachable moments will educate them on the principles of Bitcoin Sovereignty!
If you're so sure about that, why did you chicken out when PeterR proposed the bet?
I am very sure about what I said in the above quote.
As for Peter's tangentially related bet, that's already been covered:
Care to make a wager, iCEBREAKER? 1 BTC that the longest proof-of-work chain contains a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year (10-Jul-2016).
If you lose, I want real Bitcoin. If you win, expect to be paid in doublespent Gavincoins.
1MB blocks may become a harmful constraint by this time next year, given some black swan for fiat or rapid deployment of sidechain/Lightning. But we're are not even on course to begin getting there yet, given the unwelcome distraction of the Gavinista insurgency inciting the get-rich-quick XT mob. TX fees are still orders of magnitude below their cost in electricity, etc., demonstrating fee pressure insufficient for develop mature markets.
I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.
There's also the possibility we do get a technically and politically feasible velvet divorce, in which case we can forget all this nasty controversy about the "best" block size and start a new nasty controversy about which is the "real" Bitcoin.
Please keep up with the discussion and try not to slow down the rest of the class.