It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.
It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong.
Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.
Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT. A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651 -snip-
Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right?
You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!Let me make my position clear:
(1) I view the block size limit as an anit-spam measure and I support increasing it.
(2) I believe Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization is presently in development and I support measures to reduce this centralization.
By supporting XT, I help push for both larger block sizes
and help move us away from our dependency on Bitcoin Core.
If another credible team forks Bitcoin Core into a third implementation that also supports larger blocks, I will support that implementation too.
I'm in the exact same position. I really don't understand why some people are so attached to Core. What makes it so special? Centralized development goes against every principles that make bitcoin a robust system in the fist place. Core = central point of failure until XT came into existence. No matter the outcome XT opened a Pandora's box for future development and implementations. I guess it takes time for people to accept this new reality.