Quote from: oda.krell on October 13, 2015, 05:25:36 PM

Quote from: muyuu on October 13, 2015, 05:15:37 PM

Quote from: oda.krell on October 13, 2015, 05:09:38 PM

Well, since I'm mostly on the sideline of the XT issue (because I don't consider max block a significant enough economic factor), I'll add that the protocol literalists have spun a respectable number of fabricated crisis narratives themselves (uncontrollable spam, lack of LT mining reward, etc.). IMO, it replaces one potential pitfall (mostly technical) with another one (mostly psychological): turning the Blockchain into a pure high-stake clearing network before it had a chance to establish itself as a useful, reliable tool for smaller transactions is not without risk either.

For the spam justification of the limit you have to ask Satoshi.

Spam attacks have also been proven a very real threat.

Okrent's law: "The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

On 1: Wouldn't refer to him. Remember: "if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit"?

On 2: As is the lack of confidence when (not if) we hit a proper, non-artificial bottleneck.

Think I'll stay with the moderate position, thanks.

There is nothing radical in not supporting XT. Being on the fence as in "half adopting" XT is simply a disingenuous stance. Sort of like the "atheism is a religion" argument. Or being on the fence about the Pol Pot genocide because opposing all murders is radical, "let's compromise and murder just half of the opposition and their families".