Quote from: Lauda on November 23, 2015, 11:01:49 AM

Quote from: Peter R on November 23, 2015, 05:33:23 AM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on November 23, 2015, 05:00:11 AM

Quote from: 100x on November 23, 2015, 04:37:48 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 22, 2015, 02:19:46 PM

Quote from: Lauda on November 21, 2015, 09:12:19 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 21, 2015, 08:55:37 PM

Oh yeah, the whole "you're just not ready" excuse Roll Eyes

Just put him on ignore like me and you will be better off. XT is a failed takeover of Bitcoin. Everyone should accept its fate by now.

XT is not a takeover of Bitcoin, I wish you would stop saying this, I can respect your position, but saying that XT is a takeover actually harms all of Bitcoin regardless of what you believe.

Rule by the economic majority is how Bitcoin is meant to be governed. So if the majority of people freely choose to adopt an alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol then this should be considered legitimate, even if you disagree. XT requires seventy five percent consensus in order for it to even initiate a fork after all.

If Core was the client introducing BIP101 and XT represented the alternative choice for one megabyte blocks you might not have been so quick to describe XT as a takeover of Bitcoin. I do not think it is even possible to "takeover" Bitcoin. The only way for Bitcoin to lose its inherent freedom would be if people chose to give up their freedom, which is why I find such totalitarian conceptions of Bitcoin to be harmful, since Bitcoin does reflect the culture of its participants.

XT can only be considered a takeover if you believe that Core should or does rule Bitcoin, which is the same as saying that this small group of technical experts should decide on the future of Bitcoin. I find this mentality to be totalitarian in nature and antithetical to the ethos of Bitcoin.

Quote from: Rip Rowan

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it. This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin.

https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.e6tlubrv7

Your posts are an oasis of rationality, nuance, and higher level understanding in this thread. Thank you for posting -- I'm sure there are many other lurkers like me who appreciate it. The lack of intelligent, thoughtful responses you see to your posts says a lot about the caliber of most of those posting opposing viewpoints (not all! some are thoughtful -- you know who you are, thank you).

Rather he's a charlatan, or prolific shill, who you have been sucked in by,

All you are doing is demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the art, or intelligence to know you are out of your field, passing judgement on things you are not equipped to be assessing.

If that were true, who do you suppose he's shilling for?

The same people who are writing your papers.

Here is my most recent paper [link]. Can you explain your theory in more detail? It sounds like you're suggesting that I didn't write it, yet there are many people who know that I did such as Prof. Wilmer from U Pitt, Prof. Bivar from George Washington U, contributors in Cypherdoc's thread, and other people here in Vancouver. Suddenly, your "conspiracy theory" that other people are writing my papers and paying me to give talks about them [link], as well as funding VeritasSapere to post comments here gets pretty bizarre. Is everybody else "in on it" too?

The truth is that the majority of the community recognizes that bigger blocks are needed for further adoption and we're all working hard in whatever ways we can to make that happen. However, due to the censorship in online discussion, both sides of the debate are surrounded by a mist of mistrust.