Quote from: sgbett on October 08, 2015, 03:46:47 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on October 08, 2015, 03:38:10 PM

Quote from: sgbett on October 07, 2015, 10:01:56 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 07, 2015, 07:08:30 PM

XT stifled the discussion, please spare us your revisionist history.

The whole act has been a huge drain on the attention and focus of the developing community.

You say drain, I say motivate. *poof* A BIP100 appears!

History is always revised according the viewpoint of the person recounting it. In those tricky cases where its recorded in black and white, it can be dismissed as an appeal to authority.

Hmm, who should I believe about the impact of XT on BTC development?

Clueless nobody sgbett (who believed "Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks") or uber-crypto-boss Adam Back (BitGold, Blockstream)?

As for BIP100, please note it's not even fully specified, much less coded. Given that context, BIP100 means nothing more than a vote against 101.

BIP100 was obviously just the nearest handy large rock for the pools to pick up and beat XT to death with.

BIP100 can be gamed and it sets a bad precedent, thus the socioeconomic majority won't give miners that much power.

I know you and Garzik are all hot and bothered over it, but sorry, it ain't gonna happen.

Quote

bitcoin will get larger blocks, just not now, "not tonight dear"

#REKKKKT

I agree BIP100 is a terrible proposal. I agree it can be gamed, and so it will be gamed. I agree it was only produced to try and neutralise the 'threat' of XT.

I also believe that nobody will take it seriously and it will go no further.

So why even bring it up?