Quote from: brg444 on August 11, 2015, 04:22:21 PM

Quote from: Erdogan on August 11, 2015, 04:15:06 PM

Quote from: sgbett on August 11, 2015, 02:03:14 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 11, 2015, 01:25:37 PM

Quote from: majamalu on August 11, 2015, 09:06:47 AM

Quote from: Erdogan on August 10, 2015, 09:24:11 PM

Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.

1) Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.

2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.

I'm leaning more and more towards 2, judging by the percentage of Blockstream supremacists and monero pimps between block minimalists.

I don't follow your logic.
Larger blocks would help Blockstream be effective.
I doubt there are many people (if any) in either Blockstream or Monero that are seeking for Bitcoin to not succeed.

It is disingenuous to assume a wicked motive in this debate just because you disagree on the risk assessment.
Those that disagree with you could do the same and say that you want big blocks ahead of other developments because you want Bitcoin to fail and it would also not make any sense or be useful to getting the right answer.

I think what he is saying is that he doesn't think the [2] people want bitcoin to fail, they want to leverage the artificial fee market to push the adoption of their preferred alternative technology.

Right, hold back, not kill entirely, because what they have is only dreams and vaporware.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gldfn/alpha_thundernetwork_a_lightning_network/

Vaporware you say?

So I was 2 hours out of sync with reality.