Quote from: poeEDgar on October 02, 2015, 09:10:32 PM

@VeritasSapere

This kindergarten shit is a complete waste of my time. Repackaging the same arguments you've repeatedly made, which are backed by nothing but opinion -- this is not worth responding to. I hate to pat myself on the back, but I've completely ripped everything you've said to shreds. You're still quoting everything I said and merely responding with variations of "no, I don't think so" repeatedly without evidence. Often it seems that you are happy to produce endless meaningless fluff just to be able to say that you responded.

And for someone that endlessly complains about the governance structure, all you can say when asked to define an optimal governance structure is "the economic majority decides by choosing between alternative implementations of Bitcoin?" Seriously? That is not an adequate response to the question of how to amend the BIP process and improve decision-making. Apply those standards to XT as well as Core -- how do you expect decisions to be made? What is the formal process? Stop complaining until you at least have a proposal. (Then see if anyone actually supports it, or if you are still just speaking to yourself.)

Repeating "economic majority" like a buzz word doesn't accomplish what you think it does. It's a cheap excuse to redefine the consensus mechanism. Nobody is falling for that.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 02, 2015, 08:46:37 PM

BIP101 does not break the consensus mechanism, seventy five percent consensus is consistent with Bitcoin, since fifty one percent consensus would be as well.

Please reconcile this with bitcoin's historical hard forks. I'm waiting.

I am not on your side. I couldn't be further from it. You emphasize "increasing block size limit" above all else (including other methods of scaling) -- consensus, decentralization, security. You've stated yourself that achieving this on political grounds is more important than any technical considerations. I couldn't imagine a position that is less logical, or less concerned with retaining value in bitcoin. You would fracture bitcoin many times over to get your political way. That's disgusting.

It's so obvious in these threads who has real money on the line here, and who doesn't.

I've read alot of your exchanges, and you've done incredibly well to maintain your composure in the face of such relentless and willful illogic.

I hope you can now agree that this behaviour cannot be anything but entirely conceited. Dishonest participants, who will do or say anything, no matter the internal contradictions, to force their position on the issue. All while complaining that they're being censored and oppressed.

What's next, Hearn and Andresen complaining to some authority figure or other about how their great idea is being oppressed by the people who are not clever enough to choose it freely?