That Mike Hearn is a cancer can not possibly be the conclusion of any rational argument.
Please see this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1197613.msg12576154#msg12576154
If he wants to swallow his pride and learn how to cooperate with other contributors in a collaborative project, that would be another thing. He has merely ostracized himself. That is purely his own doing. Just look at his attitude. He is excising himself from bitcoin. Not my problem.
Indeed:
Quote from: wumpus
he's welcome back if he just starts talking about development, instead of questioning the project all the time
If development is centralized then how do we stop the developers from adding centralization to the protocol level?
Um, by not running such code.
I would consider development centralization to become an issue if the blocksize is not increased within a reasonable time frame. I think that this has already happened, I would be content with any increase in the blocksize from Core or even just a plan or statement of the intend to increase the blocksize, yet we have not had any of these things come from Core.
Disagree. Time is irrelevant without technically sound code to run. And Core developers (Adam Back, Jeff Garzik, others) have released several BIPs to address block capacity. You're just fixated on BIP101.
I am aware of how centralized development has been during the early days of Bitcoin, however I think as Bitcoin matures development should become more decentralized, this is off political necessity.
Why? Again:
Prove this statement: "Centralization of bitcoin development causes centralization of the bitcoin protocol." Because I only care about the latter. This is a constant red herring. That bitcoin is a decentralized protocol doesn't state anything about its governance structure. The development process has always been centralized, and I don't view that as a problem per se. Please state exactly why it is.
We have indeed discussed the merit of BIP101, I felt like you failed to respond to my political arguments which I presume you still do not acknowledge.
You still neglected to adequately address technical criticisms of BIP101, yet you are here advocating it. Actually, I have responded to your [irrelevant] political arguments (and I am continuing to here, against my better judgment). Feel free to quote such posts, and I will quote my responses.
I would not support a client that increases the supply of Bitcoin. I would support a client that increases the blocksize, by implementing BIP101. These are two very different things, it is an inaccurate comparison.
The community of devs, users and miners disagree with you. BIP101 has been roundly rejected.
I do not think that we should wait before the blocks are full before we do a hard fork to increase the blocksize, doing a hard fork at short notice could cause many problems. If we waited to long to increase the blocksize and there was a spike in adoption transactions could become unreliable and much more expensive, this would not be good for Bitcoin.
Not good for bitcoin, eh? I don't think a mass increase in orphaned blocks would be good for bitcoin, either. (Shrug)
Again, time is irrelevant without technically sound code to run.
Further, scaling is not merely limited to the context of block size. Addressing spam is another important issue that must be dealt with. And a hard fork may not be necessary (see Adam Back's proposal from May 2015).
I disagree that BIP101 has been overwhelmingly rejected on both technical and philosophical grounds. It is however irrelevant even if it was, our beliefs should not be based on what the majority believes, it should be based on the result of our own independent reasoning.
Sounds like a real lonely island. I'll stay on the mainland, but thanks. If a simple majority =/= consensus, a minority isn't gonna do any better.