Quote from: poeEDgar on October 02, 2015, 12:03:45 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 01, 2015, 11:39:41 PM

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.

I was referring to those quotes in my earlier post, I still do not consider other people saying bad things about Mike Hearn to be evidence of his wrongdoing.

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 02, 2015, 12:03:45 AM

Indeed:

Quote from: wumpus

he's welcome back if he just starts talking about development, instead of questioning the project all the time

So people should not question the project? More specifically I suppose this relates to questioning the governance of Bitcoin? I would strongly disagree that we should not question the governance of Bitcoin especially considering the problems we are facing and the importance of the questions that need to be answered, who decides is a political question not necessarily a technical one.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 01, 2015, 11:39:41 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 02, 2015, 12:03:45 AM

If development is centralized then how do we stop the developers from adding centralization to the protocol level?

Um, by not running such code.

We can agree on this at least, if the Core development team did add centralization on the protocol level then we should indeed all fork away from the Core development team.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 01, 2015, 11:39:41 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 02, 2015, 12:03:45 AM

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 not as a matter of fact I would support most of the other BIPs, I am somewhat fixated on the need for the code to be implemented however before I can support it in the form of running full nodes or mining. If you think that time is completely irrelevant in relation to increasing the blocksize then you are the one not in touch with reality, time is most definitely relevant to this discussion.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 01, 2015, 11:39:41 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 01, 2015, 06:33:39 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 01, 2015, 06:33:39 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 01, 2015, 11:39:41 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 01, 2015, 06:33:39 PM

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.

This is the article I wrote on the subject you are welcome to criticize me on the thread that I started:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

If you would like to continue the discussion we where having last time I believe this is where we left it at last:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12357136#msg12357136

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 01, 2015, 06:33:39 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 01, 2015, 11:39:41 PM

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.

I do not think that increasing the blocksize would lead to a massive increase in orphaned blocks. Since most pools today are already run in high bandwidth data centers which would not be severely effected by increased block propagation times due to an increased blocksize. It would also be unwarranted to think that no increase in the blocksize is technically feasible considering that one megabyte is just an arbitrary number, why not half a megabyte or two megabytes? There is nothing special about the one megabyte blocksize limit it was put there just as a temporary fix after all.

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 01, 2015, 06:33:39 PM

Again, time is irrelevant without technically sound code to run.

Time is relevant and if we do not have the perfect code by the time does run out then we will just have to choose the lesser of two evils, that is reality.

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 01, 2015, 06:33:39 PM

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 can agree with you that scaling should be a meusure of throughput and not just blocksize and that any other means to make throughput more efficient should be implemented, I do not oppose this. However it is impossible to tell the difference between "spam" and legitimate transactions which is why I find most solutions to the "spam problem" problematic, a feature of a permissionless network I suppose.

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 01, 2015, 06:33:39 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 01, 2015, 11:39:41 PM

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.

It can be lonely sometimes but it is the best way to live with true knowledge and understanding, better then following the sheep to the slaughter at least. One of the reasons I do love the Bitcoin community is that there are many free thinkers here.