Quote from: Adrian-x on March 08, 2016, 02:03:08 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 08, 2016, 01:35:58 AM

If these proposals were merely framed in terms of technical increases to the blocksize without attempts at hardforks and changes in governance or consensus, they probably would have gone through by now... But they are not about technical increases.

If you had been flowing this since 2013 you'd have a feeling for it, gate keepers have been blocking all discussion and stalling for years. Gavin's proposal was shot down, Maxwell went on a big public rampage exclaiming Gavin is no longer a lead developer and we wont follow him anymore. Gavin then released the working code as XT. Maxwell resigned from assigning BIP numbers most likely after his hand was forced a little while later after BIP101 was added to Core.

Other Core supported were quick to point out that as total lines of code Maxwell had in fact contributed more to bitcoin than Gavin. However it was recently uncovered that Maxwell had in fact misattribute others contributions to the code by adding his e-mail address to all unclaimed contributions, something he has not corrected to this day. (he could have used any email address he chose but he didn't he chose to use his personal one)

None the less that's a rather cheep shot as adding lines of code is akin to measuring the contribution to building an airplane by measuring the adding of weight.

I think Adam Back the CEO of Blockstream knows full well what a coup is when he sees the centralized control of Core slipping away from his hands.

Bitcoin is better served by many implementation not one centralized one, its not hostile, what is hostile is the censoring of discussion.

Fair enough when you describe political jockeying going on from both sides; however, I still believe that any technical solutions should be couched separately from governance solutions, and likely in most circumstances soft forking is going to be better than hard forks, except to the extent that the hardfork is not contentious, then in those circumstances a hardfork would be acceptable.

Otherwise, to me it seems that no one person is really in charge of bitcoin or should be considered as being in charge of bitcoin, so if agreements cannot be achieved regarding some proposed change(s) in overwhelming ways, then the status quo would continue to carry on until such overwhelming consensus based agreements could be achieved.