Quote from: Lauda on February 07, 2016, 10:15:05 AM

Quote from: MicroGuy on February 07, 2016, 05:07:49 AM

This is strange answer coming from a bitcointalk.org staff member. But you are the same person that said Satoshi's vision is irrelevant? Funny how well now I can remember you and your ways.

Should I call you 'names' for quoting me out of context; albeit you'd come crying with "ad hominem"? It is obvious why you are doing this though and you intelligence is "astounding". Look at all those logical fallacies.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on February 07, 2016, 05:12:32 AM

Strange indeed... the same people that cry most loudly against 'contentious hard forks' are the ones that seem to be against implementing a simple 2MB increase right now that would make the forking threat disappear.

It is not strange; you guys are making yourself obvious. Let me try this one more time:

Quote

What are the benefits of 2 MB blocks and what are the benefits of segwit if we exclude the increase in TPS? If your answer to the first question is nothing (it should be, you can't change this fact), then we have a clear winner. Time to move on.
The answer is a clear and indicative no. You can try to deny it, you can try to go around it, you can try to lie about it, but it won't change it. Aside from the increase in TPS that both proposals bring to the table, 2 MB block size brings nothing.

Face the facts. With segwit and the 'forkers' we have a nice case of personal incredulity.

Quote from: bitboy11 on February 07, 2016, 08:56:18 AM

Really...is that so?
Then what is it a Monarchy or Totalitarianism? Huh

It could function better depending on who's leading, albeit it is neither one of those.

Quote from: bitboy11 on February 07, 2016, 08:10:44 AM

Segwit?
When I joined bitcoin there was and still is no segwit, nor am I interested in reversible transactions with a possible and yet unknown risk of backdoor attacks.

This makes no sense.

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 07, 2016, 08:08:55 AM

what exactly about Blockstream is it -- specifically -- that has made people turn so vociferously on Core devs that have tirelessly worked for years to make bitcoin what it is?

'Forkers' are mad that their idea is irrational, and thus Blockstream must be evil and blocking consensus.

Quote from: Richy_T on February 07, 2016, 06:40:37 AM

Is it April already? I must have overslept.

Good luck gaining consensus (albeit 75% isn't consensus) for the HF before April. I'll push veto myself.

Lauda, do you ever get tired of fighting with everyone? Do you ever consider - for even a second - that you may not be 100% correct in your views?

Quote

I'll push veto myself

You do that Lauda. You veto all you like while Bitcoin is sold out to the interests of Bankers over the users themselves. The very bankers it was conceived to circumvent.

You are just a cheap sell out.