We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since this would be tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or quoting Mike Hearn "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized and free. That is why it is not intrinsically wrong to fork away from the core development team.
This is a misrepresentation of the event. Not only did Mike & Gavin's proposal not obtain consensus it achieved a majority opposition. We're not talking about an outlier forcing his veto against consensus but a team of diverse developers concluding that their approach was not appropriate and lacked legitimate technical backing.
It is not intrinsically wrong to fork away from the core development. It is wrong though to go against the technical opinion of a majority of experts in the field to propose a schism fork that divide the existing consensus and use populist tactics and propaganda to fool masses into blindly supporting an illegitimate fork on the basis of "inclusion". This is evidently an attempt by Mike Hearn to wrestle away the control over the reference code from core developers. Don't you find it hypocritical that somehow the XT team propose to fork away from core development team and arbitrarily install themselves into the driver seat?
I do not think that Core will ever increase the block size unless there is a hard fork initiated by another client. Because there is a fundamental disagreement within the Core development team itself that cannot be resolved. This has led to a stalemate. Since they can effectively veto each other on decisions. Therefore the only way to increase the block size is by hard forking away from the core development team.
The core team has several block increase implementation being worked out as we speak. This is again a disingenuous representation of reality.
It is important to remember that if you run a full node or if you are a miner, you have to vote, you literally can not do these things without casting a vote to either side, therefore it is impossible to be neutral if you either mining or running a full node. Since I do think that the block size limit should be increased, and right now I have to choose between Core or BIP101, I choose BIP101, even if it a choice between the lesser of two evils. This is a case of political realism. In political thought the lesser of two evils is often the pragmatic reality we have to accept in order to even justify the existence of the state, and we should not think that 90% consensus is practical considering how democracies actually and practically function.
Bitcoin is not a democracy. "Political realism"
I seriously almost barfed. You are entertaining very dangerous thoughts gentlemanThis fundamental disagreement lies in that some of the of the Core developers do not want the block size to be increased at all. Because some of the Core developers like Peter Todd believe that the Bitcoin blockchain can not scale efficiently and that therefore we should not try and make it scale directly at all. I would like to point out here that this the nirvana fallacy.
Absolutely wrong once again. This is an outright lie that is either intentional or demonstrate your ignorance of the events unfolding.
Just because we can not scale Bitcoin efficiently it does mean we should not scale Bitcoin directly at all. From a purely technical perspective Peter Todd and some of his colleagues might be correct. However from a political and economics perspective increasing the block size now does make a huge difference in terms of adoption and the survival of Bitcoin in the long term.
Miss me with your "political and economics perspective". This is absolutely an engineering problem. Competent engineers are telling you these are the cards you have been dealt and no amount of political posturing and complaining can change facts.
I will stop there because frankly your essay is quite boring, full of fallacies and absent of any insights. It appears you like writing a lot but you should maybe pay more attention and educate yourself a bit more about the dynamics at stake. Also, get your head out of this political/philosophical cloud because it is inferring with your judgment.
Quote
In political thought the lesser of two evils is often the pragmatic reality we have to accept in order to even justify the existence of the state, and we should not think that 90% consensus is practical considering how democracies actually and practically function
No one is ever going to take you seriously writing that type of bs.
Have a good day
