Quote from: Carlton Banks on January 30, 2016, 01:13:51 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 30, 2016, 12:44:28 PM

I am fine with no blocksize limit at all. Let the miners sort it out.

and with slithering your way out of questions you don't like answering. Not much change there either.

No real arguments defending the 'no blocksize limit'. We should give more power to the miners because that is the best approach. Roll Eyes

Quote from: figmentofmyass on January 30, 2016, 01:26:20 AM

irrelevant. this isn't about code -- that's a complete strawman. whether or not you are a coder does not make you an authority on the economics of an experimental system. consensus is about economic incentive. that is game theory, not computer programming. there is no "code" that defines what works for aligning human incentives.
-snip-

Actually I do code. I've worked in the IT field my whole life but have recently changed direction. You are right that it is not about the code. Looking at the personal attack of that 'shill' and the later replies indicated that there was no use in arguing with him. I'll just put him on ignore and so should you.

Quote from: figmentofmyass on January 30, 2016, 01:26:20 AM

i've never seen a thorough game theory analysis done by "big blockers" -- only baseless assertions that "derrrrp, ofc if one chain reaches 75% at some point the economic majority will quickly crush all opposition!1!!!" that's not an adequate explanation for anyone with basic intelligence. clearly it's enough for some of the chickens with their heads cut off running around on this forum, though.

This isn't about "big blockers" vs "small blockers" anymore, this is about taking over control over the main repository (else we'd be talking about BIP's not forks). I have not seen good arguments from them either. They're assuming that nobody will be damaged, that everyone will instantly switch because of the 75% and such. These are all assumptions based on nothing, not evidence nor research.