Quote from: hdbuck on December 01, 2015, 05:53:22 PM

Quote from: sgbett on December 01, 2015, 12:43:45 PM

Despite this I still think we need bigger blocks, and in taking this road I think that the pain Gregory described above would increase. I think this is growing pain though and although its undesirable I don't think its symptomatic of terminal illness.
I absolutely have faith that "development" has some big answers to this, and that protocol/software improvement will be the thing that addresses the challenges we currently face with infrastructure requirements.

Have faith in development or whatever, just let the developers work on proper scaling solutions.

opinion stated as fact

Quote from: hdbuck on December 01, 2015, 05:53:22 PM

Quote from: sgbett on December 01, 2015, 12:43:45 PM

Essentially I think we can have it all, and that those that frame the debate as being mutually exclusive are too married to their position to see the big picture.

Big picture: "I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

And it is exclusive from being highjacked with broken democracy social brigading.

opinion stated as fact

Quote from: hdbuck on December 01, 2015, 05:53:22 PM

Quote from: sgbett on December 01, 2015, 12:43:45 PM

Bandwidth requirements are a big concern. Full blocks are a big concern. Speculation as to the consequences of these things (an in particular using those hypothetical concerns) to justify why we must do X is not helpful.

No, full blocks are meant to be in bitcoin.

opinion stated as fact

Quote from: hdbuck on December 01, 2015, 05:53:22 PM

Quote from: sgbett on December 01, 2015, 12:43:45 PM

We should do a bit of X,Y and Z. I think in doing these things iteratively, further opportunities will present themselves. Thats the reality of software development (at least in my experience). Sometimes you have to do a bit of suck it and see. It might not be optimal at that given point in time, but it can help drive development in a more optimal direction.

The reality of "open" software development is that anybody is free to contribute, but it does not imply it will be implemented by the network's participants.

Still, bitcoin unity relies on a consensus, not some various branding for all the braindeads spectrum a la cocacola zero, light and cherry.

opinion stated as fact

Quote from: hdbuck on December 01, 2015, 05:53:22 PM

Quote from: sgbett on December 01, 2015, 12:43:45 PM

My biggest concern is that the only option I have to support bigger blocks is XT. I'd hate for everyone to jump to that because it was the only viable alternative.

Supporting bigger blocks just for bigger blocks is childish and stands no ground in the technical debate.

opinion stated as fact

Quote from: hdbuck on December 01, 2015, 05:53:22 PM

I am supporting scaling solutions that do not hamper the decentralization and hence the security of bitcoin's network.

opinion stated as fact

Quote from: hdbuck on December 01, 2015, 05:53:22 PM

I am supporting bitcoin as an immuable force from which a healthy monetary system will emerge.

opinion stated as fact

Quote from: hdbuck on December 01, 2015, 05:53:22 PM

Quote from: sgbett on December 01, 2015, 12:43:45 PM

To be clear, its the fact there is only one option that is the problem. In and of itself I don't think XT is necessarily a bad option, and I certainly don't subscribe to the belief that it would automatically result in all the bad things happening. Over time it could potentially facilitate those things, but I also believe that if that were the case then this can be addressed.

Unbelievable, talking stuff like "belief" "could" "believe" "things" all the way down to such pseudo conclusion.

I have opinions I do not state them as facts.

Quote from: hdbuck on December 01, 2015, 05:53:22 PM

Quote from: sgbett on December 01, 2015, 12:43:45 PM

Yes, I have "faith". Without it what is the point in anything.

There is no point bending bitcoin's rules just to fit couple USG payment processors and broken fiat intermediaries.

opinion stated as fact

Quote from: hdbuck on December 01, 2015, 05:53:22 PM

To hell with the corporate leeches.

probably opinion stated as fact, but its hard to tell

I think this is a common theme, and its not just you or your 'side'. There are plenty of big blockers that keep posting stuff that makes me cringe its just that they aren't rebutting my posts so there's no real reason to call them out.

Now I am not saying I am perfect, but I certainly try to make sure that I recognise what is my opinion and what are facts. I think if more people did this then the conversation could be much more productive.

My statement about XT being the only solution wasn't a conclusion, it was just one amongst several points. When you say things like "Supporting bigger blocks just for bigger blocks..." it implies that you have either not understood, or ignored what I wrote. I am in favour of big blocks for all of the reasons that I stated, and not just for their own sakes. I am troubled because the only option I have to 'support' big blocks is to run XT. They are related but independent points.

If you want a 'conclusion' then you would be better focusing on this comment: "We should do a bit of X,Y and Z. I think in doing these things iteratively, further opportunities will present themselves. Thats the reality of software development (at least in my experience). Sometimes you have to do a bit of suck it and see. It might not be optimal at that given point in time, but it can help drive development in a more optimal direction."

This comment is supposed to illustrate how software itself iterates, rather than to speak of the "open source" process. When a feature is developed algorithms are created. Those algorithms can sometimes trigger development - either the optimisation of existing algorithms, the refactoring of related code to take advantage of those new algorithms, or inspire different features based on the new algorithms. This is not an exhaustive list, but it illustrates the point I think. That sometimes it is not possible to see what will several steps ahead until some of the previous steps are implemented. To further clarify I am not saying that is the entirety of the development process, but it is one facet.

The conclusions would be that I think bigger blocks allow for more time to to continue developing scaling solutions without compromising the viability of bitcoin in terms of transaction throughput. That I think that this will not lead to dangerous levels of centralisation overnight (I agree it may not be sustainable - but conversely nobody can actually say that it is not) by making it prohibitively expensive to run a node. I think that there is not any need to attempt to artificially create a fee market when we are still in the position of coinbase being a huge revenue stream. I think that it is preferable to let a fee market develop organically.

However much you try and state that all of these opinions are wrong, you cannot categorically state that your counter opinions are any more factual. However strongly you might believe in them.

Hal Finney had an opinion, and you posted it. He could be right. Satoshi had an opinion too - its in my sig, maybe he is right. gmaxwell posted about how he though 'coffee on chain' was far less of a problem than 'nothing on chain' - I'd agree. Using the blockchain for non bitcoin transfer seems much further away from "what is bitcoin" than actually recording bitcoin transfer.

We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.