Quote from: jonny1000 on May 17, 2016, 02:47:27 AM

At least some of the Classic/XT advocates did genuinely have Bitcoins best interests at heart, we just disagreed with their methods, we need to still respect them.

Exactly who might those be? Hearn, Gavin, maybe Toomin? Roll Eyes

Quote from: jonny1000 on May 17, 2016, 02:47:27 AM

Gaining this victory was vital, it demonstrated the rules of the system are resilient, but at the same time weaknesses were exposed in the process.

One of the fundamental points of Bitcoin is this very resilience.

Quote from: jonny1000 on May 17, 2016, 02:47:27 AM

Therefore it is potentially possible to eliminate and existing protocol rule without strong consensus, in some circumstances.

Elaborate?

Quote from: jonny1000 on May 17, 2016, 02:47:27 AM

Recognizing this imperfection, I think we should, from a position of strength, be pragmatic, and as a sign of respect for those people who have hopefully been defeated, implement a change in the limit to 2MB, consistent with the HK agreement.

Disagree. Their support has gone beyond disagreeing with views to just being irrational about everything regardless of evidence presented (either their way or none). Giving in to such uneducated fools (if I may say) is not going to help anyone. While I might not be necessarily against a 2 MB block size limit (only after the validation time is down to O(n)), I disagree with trying to either push for it now, or impose additional limitations as Classic did.

Quote from: hdbuck on May 17, 2016, 05:44:34 AM

People can have as many 'agreements' as they wish, Bitcoin ain't moving an inch.

This.