Here are a few names of people
opposed to the block size increase along with evidence that they feel the censorship is a positive thing in terms of balancing the debate.
5. LaudaM (
link)
-snip-
I'm not even sure what to comment on this. That link does not prove either assumption that you've made. You're spreading false information regarding me (I will not comment the others). I was actually advocating for the increase a few months back in a huge thread (that was over 100 pages long). I never said that the block size limit should not be increased. While I do support a increase (which is not urgent as some think), I do not support XT at all. There is a difference.
As for the "censorship", there are two possible situations: a) either you are not able to comprehend what real censorship is; b) or you have forgotten that this is a privately owned forum.
IMHO this is off-topic.
1 down, 4 to go. Peter?
My apologies LaudaM. I have always appreciated your commentary. Carlton asked for examples of people who appeared to be in favour of the
censoring removing off-topic content and threads that are broad in scope and I recalled your recent comment in favour of the action the Forum Administration took by locking Cypherdoc's thread.
The trouble with
words (such as censoring) is that we can twist their meanings to prove our points.
I said early that:
"I just find it fascinating how we attempt to contort reason to justify otherwise reprehensible behaviour. I suppose that it's difficult, without the benefit of hindsight, to recognize the extent to which we are guilty of this ourselves."When we look back on this a year from now, will people agree that the discussion of BitcoinXT was off-topic? Will they agree that the locking of Cypherdoc's thread by the Administration "because threads with a broad scope are no longer permitted" was an objective decision?