Quote from: Lauda on January 10, 2016, 06:42:31 PM

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 10, 2016, 06:00:20 PM

I'm not unknown. I'm C.Bergmann, hero member, as long here as you, but I lost my account and my recovery-request was not answered. I'm well-known in german bitcoin community.

I apologize then. I quickly jumped to conclusions for reasons that I'm not going to write here (because they are off-topic). However, it does apply to the countless amount of shills that have appeared for both sides (XT vs Core, BU vs Core, etc.). There are countless examples of this and I did not mean to directly name you. I do dislike your statement in regards to theymos and the moderators (including me) because it is false.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 10, 2016, 06:00:20 PM

The fact is: if we stopp talking and discussing, everybody certainly looses.

This is true, but talking nonsense is also redundant which results in time lost. I'm open to collaboration, but not manipulation and attempts to shift away users to controversial ideas (e.g. XT).

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 10, 2016, 06:00:20 PM

I don't know, if you are just a hater, who enjoys this, the boy who waited for others to fall so he could trample on them, or if you really fear the big-blockers are going to destroy bitcoin willingly with their lies.

They could easily. There was a nice slide presented at the time of the first workshop that showed what a single 8 MB block could do.

Apologies accepted.

If you say moderators are independent, I believe you. But it's hard to believe that every moderator in this forum came freely to the conclusion that there should be no alternative client who violates consensus and that the blocks should not be raised now. It sounds more like the unity of a party than of free men. Or did I miss something?

Tell me more about the 8MB blocks. What could they do? I follow this debate for long, more on reddit then here, but - I never heard really confessing reasons for not raising the limit. Bandwith? Space? CPU? Node-Centralization? Mega-Transactions? None of this problem seemed like a problem large enough to stall development of bitcoin and / or scaling it completely in a way that's not the original bitcoin (lightning).

The other thing I deeple disargue with you is, as other people said: You and your team seem not to be willing to allow a free market of alternative clients and you hinder the community to collect informations to express their opinion with the choice of the client. This is a major democratic element in open source and in bitcoin, it's the major mechanism to protect bitcoin for an destructive takeover by developers (I explicitly don't mint this on Core!). If you deny and surpress this possibility, - what you say you do - you are no longer in a consensus of democracy. And bitcoin needs its own kind of democracy to survice.