Quote from: hdbuck on May 14, 2016, 03:57:43 PM

I'm not misrepresenting, for one's simple question luke's answer is pretty straightforward:

asciilifeform: normally folks going hard-forking have some specific idea of why... luke-jr: asciilifeform: to show the industry that a hardfork and consensus is a possible thing

Luke has willingly and maybe innocently committed to instigate more uncertainty and drama in bitcoin's ecosystem instead of focusing in moving on now that their had they segwit thing out.

But them roundtable fools have been cornered by mining cartels (3 to 4 corps) to release some dummy hard fork if they were to implement them core baby segwit in the first place. And now Luke's wandering in the sea of bitcoin's community selling his shit like a mere door to door girlscout selling brownies. And that's bullshit i'm not keen on buying.

If the industry wants a hark fork, let them write whatever shit code they think they could force down the protocol's throat with them buncha ego tripping corporations whining for "progress" and deluding themselves as being relevant in bitcoin.

If you don't want girl scout cookies, just say no thanks. There's no need to attack the innocent Brownie's motivation and get all huffy because you don't like Girl Scout Inc's SJW agenda, nor bluster and harrumph about "how dare those greedy little imps come to offer me their Evil Thin Mints and Satanic Samoas!" Grin

You're still selectively quoting only the first half of Luke's response, which was bifurcated into separate (external) political/governance and (internal) technical warrants for a hard fork.

You continue ignoring the second half, which provides what your screeching demands, ie a security-based justification in the form of fixing block withholding.

I'm generally in favor of waiting for something like an exigent block-withholding-crisis to force through (with vanishing contention) a single-purpose hard fork, but there's no good reason to pretend luke exclusively predicated a hard fork on pleasing Brian Fucking Armstrong.

As some wag recently declared, "I don't like it when somebody comes into my living room and shits on the floor, but I don't need to pretend it's nuclear waste either." Cheesy

May I ask how you generally feel about the Hard Fork Wish List? Is it something that should be canvassed/lobbied for (as luke was doing), or do you see it as some insidious plot of the banksters to poison honey badger with attack-surface-bloating features?

If we did hard fork in an emergency, should we have Wish List code ready to deploy so the crisis becomes an opportunity, or does that offend some subtle yet overweening #B-A purity conceit?

Of course the various roundtables are silly exercises in granfalloonery, but I don't see the harm in east-west summits (especially if copious amounts of tasty dim sum + beer were consumed in the process, and a good time was had by all).

While fully agreeing with the "Fuck you Brian Armstrong" sentiment, I don't see how responding to luke's friendly inquiry with "zomg fuck you for trying to improve Bitcoin $down $down $down!!!11!" really helps anything.

As with the embarassing display of impotent rage directed at sipa over a (segwit) soft fork, such behavior hardly qualifies as "serene." Wink

Quote

LUKE: Hai gize, u want show everyone BTC governance can work to preemptively fix security problems like block withholding?

#B-A: zomg, LUKE is working for the banksters!!! Support block withholding or Coinbase wins!!!

*LUKE has been kickbanned for daring to ask simple, glaring, obvious questions*

Do you see the logical and practical disconnections in the above interaction?