As luke admits it, the fork only aims at showing "the industry that a hardfork and consensus is a possible thing".
It has never been about blocksize or anything but governance.
If only it was for some security reason, surely a HF would have naturally be adopted, yet here the situation is different and only serves the marketing purpose of parasitic corporations interests.
It has never been about blocksize or anything but governance.
If only it was for some security reason, surely a HF would have naturally be adopted, yet here the situation is different and only serves the marketing purpose of parasitic corporations interests.
You keep relying on the word "only" to make your argument, but luke already (even in the irc log) specified "some security reason."
Quote
luke-jr: asciilifeform: things I'd like to see in it would be merged mining, additional inputs to the generation transaction, and maybe fix block withholding
"Fix block withholding" = "some security reason"
Block withholding isn't the only security improvement on the Hard Fork Wish List.
It's possible to both A. improve the external+internal optics of Bitocoin governance and B. improve Bitcoin security AT THE SAME TIME.
I hope this obvious statement isn't considered thoughtcrime in tmsr; I'd hate to chastised with a "$down" for my insolence.
The "hard forks should only happen in exigent circumstances, and may never be elective" position certainly has my sympathy, but my default support wavers when you start irrationally distorting, twisting, and misrepresenting the arguments in favor of the opposite approach.