Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 06:52:58 PM

Quote from: Lauda on December 27, 2015, 05:47:59 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 05:42:02 PM

In regards to Core attempting to censor Coinbase, you can follow the discussion here and decide for yourself what side you want to be on:

So according to you Bitcoin.org = Bitcoin Core? Makes sense.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 05:21:59 PM

I do not see a counter argument here, I get the feeling that you are not interested in engaging in constructive discussion. I have already explained how Bitcoin unlimited works, it is actually relatively simple. The feature set has already been decided upon, in the future more features will most likely be added. We even have a formal decision making process in place which I would argue is actually superior to Core.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articlesOfFederation

There is nothing to counter, you are telling me that the rules are yet going to be decided and then you tell me that it is already decided? Make up your mind. I'm asking a simple question, exactly what mechanism decides the block size and how.

It seems like you do not get it, everyone essentially can decide the blocksize for themselves under Bitcoin Unlimited, it takes this power away from centralized development teams. In effect this would have to be a negotiation between the miners and the economic majority. If more people started running BU nodes then the miners could simply start mining bigger blocks as they see fit and appropriate. As opposed to the type of central economic planning that placing this power with a development team would necessitate, having multiple implementations of course expands this choice, however BU is even better since the blocksize limit would become a product of the emergent consensus of the Bitcoin network as a whole. Ultimately this would reflect the true supply and demand of block space as opposed to the arbitrary limits set by Core.

If the current consortium of Bitcoin nodes and those who compose the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network decide the blocksize needs an increase it has ALWAYS been possible for them to locally adjust and compile their node to accept blocks of whatever size.

It's a sign to how low and infantile the conversation has devolved that you continue to entertain the notion that the open-source development of Bitcoin is centrally developed and forced on Bitcoin users.

Miners incentives in mining blocks are NOT aligned with node users and leaving them the decision as to what size the block should be inevitably leads to an ostracization of low bandwidth nodes. The centralizing effect is undeniable.

This outright LIE that BU offers a market-driven solution is so asinine and disingenuous the notion is a disgrace to the credibility of anyone who dares participating in this manipulation.

It leaves literally everything up to the miners.