Quote from: jonny1000 on May 18, 2016, 02:43:51 AM

I think Garzik is very likely to have his view of the best interests of the system driving his decisions. I would have said the same about Gavin, except after the CW fiasco I have little conviction as to his intentions. I think the best thing would be for him to stop supporting the counterproductive Classic attack for several months and then revaluate.

Fair point. Even though Garzik was in support of the HF, I didn't see him getting involved much in the 'politics' nor do much coding for Classic (if any at all?). However, he's the sole example.

Quote from: jonny1000 on May 18, 2016, 02:43:51 AM

This is why I think the actions of the developers in the HK agreement was unfortunately necessary and somewhat justified.

You do realize that the people that signed that 'agreement' only represent themselves and nothing more?

Quote from: jonny1000 on May 18, 2016, 02:43:51 AM

This is why we should do it form a position of strength. The Classic node count is down to 15% and the hashrate is around 5.5%. I still think these metrics are too high for a hardfork to 2MB. However if they fall further and Core looks stronger, then I think we should implement a hardfork to 2MB.

I think that you've got this all wrong and do not realize the type of 'people' that are behind this. Since Maxwell already mentioned shills and whatnot, what I see happening, assuming that Core does agree to do a 2 MB block size limit for this reason that you've mentioned, is :"We've succeeded in pushing 2 MB blocks, it is time to go further. 4 MB blocks!". Do you really think that with all that was said in /r/btc that most (not all!) of these people have any kind of respect for the current (Core) developers? The answer is a clear no.

Update:

Quote from: jbreher on May 18, 2016, 07:07:44 AM

You seem to miss that there is a difference between respect and blind unthinking obsequiousness.

No.