The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'
I would love to see the current definition of "consensus" for Bitcoin changes because if that means 100% support for doing something then the whole project is royally screwed. There has been no endeavor of importance in human history where unanimity was required on all decisions.
This obviously doesn't apply because Bitcoin development has not needed 100% support for "doing something". Compare Bitcoin today to Bitcoin 0.1 and you will see that quite a lot has been done, and probably not one single thing has ever had 100% support (there is always someone...)
What Bitcoin development has done up to this point is push through contentious hard forks. There is a perfectly reasonable view that hard forks should never be done at all, or at least not unless there is a huge emergency. "I think this is a good idea" doesn't count.
Accepting for the moment that point of view, development on a great many things that don't require hard forks (contentious or otherwise) can continue, and scalability can be built outside the core. That may not be everyone's preferred solution but it hardly means the whole project is royally screwed.
Well said. In solex's "the whole project is royally screwed" quasi-buttcoiner BS, his unsubstantiated claim of heretofore unobserved emergency Soon relies on completely warped misreading and misapplication of Bitcoin history (which you graciously correct with an apt summary of the actual facts and logic involved).
Economic consensus will exist IFF it is no longer in the economic interest of anyone possessing economic veto power to maintain their major objection to the proposed hard fork. EG, in "a huge emergency" that threatens the present and future value of their coins, even MPEX & Co will (tend to) support (or at least not object to and actively attack/sabotage) the leading proposed solution.
As for
Quote
"I think this is a good idea" doesn't count.
lol rekt
That one is up there with MoA's classic
"not tonight dear"