Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 19, 2015, 04:25:22 PM

Quote from: yayayo on September 19, 2015, 04:13:51 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 19, 2015, 03:54:07 PM

Quote from: yayayo on September 19, 2015, 03:39:25 PM

To quote adamstgBit because I could have said it better myself:

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 18, 2015, 02:17:39 PM

i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in and of itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed. satoshi knew what that would do, and he talked about SPV clients becoming more important as time went on. not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.

Even though it is factually incorrect that a protocol fork of Bitcoin is an altcoin. If you where to use such faulty logic then it would actually be the other way around. Since not increasing the blocksize could essentially be considered as equivalent to breaking the social contract of Bitcoin.

There is no such thing as a social contract. This is a typical socialist diversion. It won't work.

A protocol fork of Bitcoin, unless it obtains support from the economic majority, is absolutely and without doubt an altcoin.

It's not just socialist "diversion". In fact it is socialist authoritarianism. Enforcing contracts upon others without their consent is good old-style dictatorship.

This is exactly the kind of mind set Gavin and Hearn embrace for their hostile fork-attempt as well. It is 100% contradictory to the idea of Bitcoin.

I'm sure that with the help of its competent developers, Bitcoin will ultimately scale in a smarter way than FUD-pushed extremist BIP101.

Having another option for the voluntary choice of running an alternative implementation of Bitcoin is not a dictatorship by any stretch of the meaning of that word. Voluntarism is 100% consistent with the idea of Bitcoin.

Would you miss us with your mischaracterization of reality?

Bitcoin XT does not propose an alternative implementation it proposes a different protocol.