Re: Theymos (operator of Bitcointalk and Bitcoin subreddit) is censoring Bitcoin XT
I'm impressed at the level of Bitcoin knowledge of bitcointalk.org users compared to /r/Bitcoin users. 
Most of the people in this thread and other similar threads are interpreting the issues correctly (or at least with some evidence of actual thought), unlike most Redditors.
Bitcoin's hardforks (though some people don't classify them as hardforks) were done with consensus among the the Bitcoin community/economy/experts. In the current state of the debate, any max block size increase won't have consensus, though I think that consensus on a compromise proposal might be achievable in 6-18 months.
Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin. The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.
Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.
Most of the people in this thread and other similar threads are interpreting the issues correctly (or at least with some evidence of actual thought), unlike most Redditors.I don't think it makes sense to call Bitcoin XT an alt-coin anymore than it does the current version of Bitcoin Core, which has hard-forked several times since it was introduced. Furthermore, Bitcoin Core will only fork away from Bitcoin XT when XT has 75% of the hash power behind it.
Bitcoin's hardforks (though some people don't classify them as hardforks) were done with consensus among the the Bitcoin community/economy/experts. In the current state of the debate, any max block size increase won't have consensus, though I think that consensus on a compromise proposal might be achievable in 6-18 months.
Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin. The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.
Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.
I agree that Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. Their role is to process and confirm transactions that comply with the rules of the system, and protect against double spends by burying such transactions under heaps of proof of work. If and when miners stop serving the interests of the user base / economic majority, than at that time those users should search for some alternative method of transaction processing that would provide the required confidence and transparency.
Theymos, why would 75% miners want to make changes that dont have the support of the users, big businesses, or exchanges, especially if doing so would leave them mining tokens that no one wanted? It doesnt make sense. I dont see any reason why a 3/4 majority of the hash power would choose such a path.
While I do agree with your concept of the economic majority, the fact is we dont have any good way of accurately measuring what they (the majority) prefer with the singular exception of a market. Let there be two coins and see which one captures the exchange value. We all know the problems with the other voting methods, most of which are variations on the sybil attack. Voting with hashpower, owning to its manipulation-resistant properties, is the second-best stand in for voting with a market. So the current vote can maybe be likened to a ballot initiative, with the signature-gathering stage (or perhaps a primary election) being the 75% threshold for miners, and the final election being the opening of the markets, chain vs chain.
That is a much better system - for bitcoin at least - than waiting for a handful of core-devs and other experts and important people to all come to an agreement they may in fact never reach. One approach is decentralized, the other looks eerily like the central bank model of an inner circle of chairpersons, governors, presidents, etc.
So lets let the economy vote, with its money, and may the favored chain win. Markets run their best when information is free flowing. Theymos, you are in a trusted position in the bitcoin community of having control over two of the most important forums for discourse. If the economy is going to have its vote, please help it arrive at the correct result, whatever it may be, by keeping these channels open to people from all persuasions, even if and when it seems like things might be going in a way that you dont think is best.