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 anti-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.
Peter, the way you're biting every worm Hearn casts toward you is very disturbing.
This newly created issue of "developer centralization" is completely disingenuous and grounded in plain ignorance. Of course I am especially tired of seeing you rehashing the same tired concern (I imagine that's how GMax felt when you kept publicly supporting the false and misguiding conclusions of your paper) so allow me to quote myself again.
You absolutely don't understand or are being willingly misleading about this "centralization" issue. There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code. That's pretty much the only way Bitcoin works. It happens that the core developers have historically been the one trusted with maintaining this code and updating it. Several implementations have been built around this consensus code. Most of them have little support for very valid reason: their implementation is generally considered less tested and therefore potentially less secure than core implementation. Now should we blame core for attracting the most competent developers in the space? Would it be rational to ask of them to each start dividing their work between different implementations just for the sake of "decentralization"?
The centralization issue you refer to is nothing more than a lack of man power. That is, only a scarce amount of people are reliable and technically able enough to handle the highly fragile development of Bitcoin. It is no wonder the guys currently leading core are some of the world's most advanced experts in their own field. This expertise cannot be easily replaced or dismissed "because decentralization". It is absolutely unproductive and irresponsible to try to advance decentralization of Bitcoin development by encouraging incapable people to start messing around with their own implementations and risk breaking consensus.