Quote from: jbreher on March 08, 2016, 04:52:57 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 08, 2016, 02:25:23 AM

...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.

If you were being logically consistent, 'status quo' would not be defined as 'the biggest change to the Bitcoin protocol since inception' -- which is exactly what The SegWit Omnibus Changeset really is -- but rather, no change.

But then again, I've not before particularly ascribed logical consistency to your statements...

Yes.... get in your little dig, jbreher, and that will help us to have a substantive discussion, no?

I do not claim to know everything about these bitcoin scaling discussions, and accordingly, if I am not being logically consistent, it is good for you or anyone else to point out these potential inconsistency matters in order that I am able to attempt to clarify and to verify if there is room for movement, compromise or reconsideration of my position.. to the extent that my opinion and perceptions of things matter in the whole scheme of things.

Your assertion that I am being logically inconsistent implies that either I know all of the facts and I am purposefully engaging in a form of spin to suit my own view or that I am purposefully attempting to skew some facts in order to spin my view. That is not the case, and you are likely just pissed off because I frequently call out your stupid ass xt and classic supporter friends for being whinny dufusses.

Yes, each of us will give different weight to different facts, yet I don't claim to have any horse in this race besides merely owning bitcoin and wanting bitcoin to succeed (which is probably true with a lot of genuine people on each side of this here blocksize limit debate). Actually part of the sadness here is that some people really genuinely and truly believe that there is some kind of technical problem with bitcoin and there is some kind of emergency pressing the need to hardfork and increase the blocksize limit, which really seems very apparent as NOT to be the case at the moment.. but we do have a lot of screamers and whiners in this discussion saying that we gotta increase the blocksize and hardfork and change governance.. blah blah blah.

In any event, I appreciate anyone genuinely (and not engaging in pussified digs) pointing out if my statements seem to be logically inconsistent or if I am missing some facts because getting clarification of facts or logic could assist me to better understand the issue, if that is needed.

Regarding the underlying substance of what you seem to be asserting about seg wit, my understanding generally is that seg wit is going to be implemented as a mostly non-contentious soft fork.

I do understand that there are some recent developments with seg wit on the test net that could cause some delays or need to clarify whether seg wit should come first; however, in recent months, there has not been any real or meaningful disagreements regarding whether seg wit should be implemented.. from what I understand it is pretty non-controversial that seg wit should be implemented.

Some people just believe that it could be faster (and possibly easier) to implement a blocksize limit increase first before seg wit that is if the real goal in this blocksize limit controversy were about the technical issue of blocksize limit increase rather than the underlying and real motives concerning hardforking and attempts at changing governance.

So, to me, it seems that you, jbreher, are engaging in either a strawman argument by suggesting that seg wit could be controversial (and that core had attempted to implement a controversial protocol change) or you are purposefully getting emotional in your attempt to denigrate the overall points that I was making by calling my assertion inconsistent... My overall point remains that at this time there seems to be no real evidence that we need to rush into a blocksize limit increase as if bitcoin were in some kind of technical emergency state of disrepair.