Quote from: jeffthebaker on August 26, 2015, 02:47:46 AM

I suppose that's true, but Theymos' propositions are still incredibly harsh on any change whatsoever.

No, I support making a certain class of change (hard fork changes) very difficult. This the only correct position. If hard fork changes are not very difficult, then the hard, "mathematical" guarantees that we have about Bitcoin such as coin ownership and limited supply are pretty much worthless.

(Did you know that it's possible to increase the max block size with a soft fork using a proposal called extension blocks? This proposal isn't very popular because it's considered inelegant, but if consensus is impossible and you think that Bitcoin cannot survive without more transaction volume, then extension blocks would be better than splitting the economy up with a hostile hard fork. You don't need the same level of consensus for soft forks.)

My main motivation is for Bitcoin to succeed long-term (for ideological reasons). I have less potential conflict of interest than most people here, since I am self-employed.

Things I don't particularly care about:
- The value of bitcointalk.org, /r/Bitcoin, and bitcoin.org
- The short & medium-term market value of BTC
- My personal fame/power/reputation/wealth
- What random people who I don't know or respect think about what I'm doing

Things I do care about:
- Bitcoin's long-term decentralization
- The long-term ability of Bitcoin to provide anonymity
- The long-term price/usefulness of BTC
- Rational technical/economic arguments

To a large extent, the above is why have I have so much power in the community. I didn't create any of the important things that I now have some amount of control over -- in all cases I was given control by other people who trusted that I would do the right thing with them. Here's what /r/Bitcoin's creator recently said: "Theymos doesn't kneel, he doesn't sacrifice and is willing to stand up for what HE believes to be true, rather than some external authority."

Quote from: jeffthebaker on August 26, 2015, 02:47:46 AM

He has a rough history (wasn't he just uncovered to be laundering money through some donation?)

No.

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 03:58:04 AM

Not any change. He said he is opposed to XT not block size increase or whatsoever.

Right. I don't like BIP 100 or 101 because they are too fast, but maybe I could accept them if almost all of the other experts disagreed with me (since I might be wrong), and I'm personally open to a wide variety of block size increase proposals. Unlike some in the "conservative camp", I don't believe that it's necessary to artificially restrict block space. I even think that there's a fairly easy way that the global max block size could reasonably be entirely removed (each full node would have its own max block size calculated in a certain special way), though I think that a global max is better.