Quote from: DooMAD on January 15, 2016, 03:52:06 PM

Quote from: btcusury on January 15, 2016, 02:56:07 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on January 12, 2016, 09:15:51 PM

Quote from: btcusury on January 12, 2016, 08:21:41 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on January 12, 2016, 11:55:04 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on January 12, 2016, 10:24:04 AM

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to. People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions. I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.
[...]
I crave the opposite of authority, you're the one who thinks they can tell other people what kind of software they can and can't run to suit your own agenda. You're the authoritarian fascist here. I say let the chips fall where they may, because I embrace a free and open market. I don't fear it as you do. Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run. If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals.

So you openly admit that you're a statist (i.e. an involuntaryist, an advocate of slavery), but you call other people "authoritarian" Huh

WTF?

That was an attempt at mockery, seeing as people like hdbuck, icebreaker and a few of the other hardcore MP fanboys seem to enjoy calling everyone with even the slightest left-wing leaning a statist. And the jab remains that I still respect the free market more than fake libertarian pretenders like them.

Which is the more authoritarian attitude in your mind?

I'm of the opinion that hdbuck's view, "a)", is authoritarian. My view, "b)", is the complete opposite of authoritarian. Thus concludes another edition of "why do I always have to spell it out for people like they're not all there upstairs?" Roll Eyes

That's not quite what's happening, though. You are essentially dumbing down the situation to soundbites, MSM-style. And the reason you're doing that is, I would suggest, because you're not actually paying attention. Or, rather, you are only paying attention to one side of the argument. You are going with what sounds/feels good to you rather than examining the technicalities involved (which requires, you know, research). You can have a look in Technical Discussion or on /r/Bitcoin, e.g. here. Poster spoonXT sums up the situation perfectly:

Quote from: spoonXT

Yes, I think the urgency pushed by larger block proponets plays into a power grab. Right now they are fighting against Core's roadmap that is sufficient to take the pressure off; it also lays the groundwork to solve the rest of the problem in successive stages.

When dealing with urgent emergencies, one must keep in mind the USA PATRIOT Act, the Reichstag Fire Decree, and Problem-Reaction-Solution in general.
Regarding why not 2MB now, there is a known validation DDoS attack (chewing CPU), that must be addressed first. It could delay blocks by more than 10 minutes if the blocksize were 2MB. Core devs will never allow it, until they've rolled out the fix, as planned in their roadmap.

You probably don't even know what "Problem-Reaction-Solution" refers to, do you, DooMAD?

Poster Ilogy also sums it up very well:

Quote from: Ilogy

I thought things were looking relatively bright with segregated witness, in particular, an exciting development that likely flowered into existence because of the healthy and measured way the community approached all of this without resorting to falling for the FUD. The scaling Bitcoin conferences and the intrinsically decentralized, communal nature of this approach toward reaching consensus, rather than relying on a CEO, seems to me to have spoken directly to what is good about Bitcoin.

But then you Gavin and Hearn and the community behind them. Their method is not to participate in the larger community's discussion -- they didn't attend the last scaling Bitcion conference at all, for instance -- but instead they created a hard fork which in lay men's term is simply, "it's our way or the highway."

In other words, they want us to hand Bitcoin over to them. That is their solution to the complicated nature of open source, let's just install a CEO. Essentially, they are saying, "give up on the community, no one at those conferences matter . . . give us power, scrap Bitcoin and come over to our new Bitcoin." That's scary, at least to me.

I could understand XT, as it certainly spawned an urgency that otherwise wasn't being addressed with enough haste, and I applaud them for that. But then when things are looking bright, and the urgency far less dramatic, they just rekindle the fight with even more desperation in the form of "Bitcoin Classic." There is something else going on here. Why the urgency? Why the desperation? Why do we need to restart the civil war?

What further disturbs and concerns me is that Mike Hearn, one of the two brains behind XT along with Gavin, actually gladly accepted the position of developing R3, the block chain being created by the coordinated effort of the international bankers. He works for the banks. This demonstrates a mindset intent on power.

Mikey Hearn also openly reveals how much of a pro-bankster pro-"authority" brown-noser he is:

Quote from: Mike Hearn

Ive spent more than 5 years being a Bitcoin developer. The software Ive written has been used by millions of users, hundreds of developers, and the talks Ive given have led directly to the creation of several startups. Ive talked about Bitcoin on Sky TV and BBC News. I have been repeatedly cited by the Economist as a Bitcoin expert and prominent developer. I have explained Bitcoin to the SEC, to bankers and to ordinary people I met at cafes.

From the start, Ive always said the same thing: Bitcoin is an experiment and like all experiments, it can fail. So dont invest what you cant afford to lose. Ive said this in interviews, on stage at conferences, and over email. So have other well known developers like Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik.

But despite knowing that Bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly. The fundamentals are broken and whatever happens to the price in the short term, the long term trend should probably be downwards. I will no longer be taking part in Bitcoin development and have sold all my coins.

This guy isn't aware of the existence of the control system, and thinks the world is all fine and dandy, that humans aren't being oppressed at all. He is so mainstream he hardly needs to have been or ever be co-opted. He's already a mind-controlled asset.

One of Hearn's main problems with Theymos' moderation policy / censorship is this:

Quote

[...]
The release of Bitcoin XT somehow pushed powerful emotional buttons in a small number of people. One of them was a guy who is the admin of the bitcoin.org website and top discussion forums. He had frequently allowed discussion of outright criminal activity on the forums he controlled, on the grounds of freedom of speech. But when XT launched, he made a surprising decision. XT, he claimed, did not represent the developer consensus and was therefore not really Bitcoin. Voting was an abomination, he said, because:

Quote

One of the great things about Bitcoin is its lack of democracy

Yeah, that's exactly right. "Democracy", as with all forms of "government", is a euphemism for "legitimized" violence and slavery. The slavish reactionary sheep who like to believe that Bitcoin is some kind of "democracy" are the ones whose energy is easily herded and harnessed into the planned "solution" (in the Problem-Reaction-Solution stratagem) that the creators of the "problem" (urgent need for increasing max block size) are hoping for.

That's a considerably long winded way of saying that because core have proposed their solution, no one else can propose a different one, because if they do, it's a coup/hostile takeover/power grab/dictatorship/CEO/all the other scary-sounding-yet-entirely-bullshit examples you fear-mongerers keep coming up with. It's not "dumbing down" to phrase it as I did, it's "succinctly getting to the point". Your point appears to consist of nothing more than "Hearn = Bad, so everyone has to agree with Core". Your "Problem-Reaction-Solution" spiel is just a rehash of your previous attempt at stating anyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed by mainstream media. It's just one thinly veiled insult after another with you. If all you've got left are character assassinations and boogeymen, then it's clear you're out of arguments.

Why is it that "big blockists" (impatient/reckless side) keep insisting that "small blockists" (conservative/careful side) want to stay at 1MB? The issue is the way it's being introduced as a contentious/risky hard fork. Since others have already thoroughly explained this and since everyone loves to bash theymos for his moderation/censorship, I'll just quote his whole post, so that you have no excuse to continue to ignore the term "hard fork" and call it merely a "proposal":

Quote from: theymos on August 26, 2015, 04:53:00 AM

Quote from: jeffthebaker on August 26, 2015, 02:47:46 AM

I suppose that's true, but Theymos' propositions are still incredibly harsh on any change whatsoever.

No, I support making a certain class of change (hard fork changes) very difficult. This the only correct position. If hard fork changes are not very difficult, then the hard, "mathematical" guarantees that we have about Bitcoin such as coin ownership and limited supply are pretty much worthless.

(Did you know that it's possible to increase the max block size with a soft fork using a proposal called extension blocks? This proposal isn't very popular because it's considered inelegant, but if consensus is impossible and you think that Bitcoin cannot survive without more transaction volume, then extension blocks would be better than splitting the economy up with a hostile hard fork. You don't need the same level of consensus for soft forks.)

My main motivation is for Bitcoin to succeed long-term (for ideological reasons). I have less potential conflict of interest than most people here, since I am self-employed.

Things I don't particularly care about:
- The value of bitcointalk.org, /r/Bitcoin, and bitcoin.org
- The short & medium-term market value of BTC
- My personal fame/power/reputation/wealth
- What random people who I don't know or respect think about what I'm doing

Things I do care about:
- Bitcoin's long-term decentralization
- The long-term ability of Bitcoin to provide anonymity
- The long-term price/usefulness of BTC
- Rational technical/economic arguments

To a large extent, the above is why have I have so much power in the community. I didn't create any of the important things that I now have some amount of control over -- in all cases I was given control by other people who trusted that I would do the right thing with them. Here's what /r/Bitcoin's creator recently said: "Theymos doesn't kneel, he doesn't sacrifice and is willing to stand up for what HE believes to be true, rather than some external authority."

And this is exactly the kind of asset we'd want controlling centralized discussion hubs.

I do get the strong impression that most of the "big blockists" are thinking very short-term, not quite realizing what decentralized ledgers mean to the banksters and their subtle puppets on the thrones.

Quote from: Lauda on January 15, 2016, 05:36:41 PM

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 15, 2016, 05:00:28 PM

If you say everybody supporting bigger blocks is manipulated you attack their intelligence. This makes discussion, as you say, completely useless, because you reject the idea big blocker could have valid arguments. If you know that their arguments are just manipulation, you can stopp thinking.

With this I meant people are being manipulated so that they forget the original statements/stances of others. Interestingly at first 20 MB blocks were urgent, now a 2 MB compromise is okay. This is what I'm talking about.

And very short-term memory, indeed. We have been trained to be led; it's what many of us are used to.