Quote from: Lauda on July 01, 2016, 06:57:53 AM

Quote from: Foxpup on July 01, 2016, 06:46:07 AM

Just a friendly reminder of who's really in charge:

bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground

Or a reminder of who's "all talk" as they say.

I don't agree with everything you post, but refuting FUD that "supports" "core" certainly helps convince me that you do believe what you are posting (vs just being a shill).

Quote from: franky1 on July 05, 2016, 10:07:42 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on July 05, 2016, 08:36:49 AM

Quote from: Lauda on July 05, 2016, 06:47:52 AM

Quote from: AliceGored on July 04, 2016, 10:44:21 PM

I agree that the miners made a mistake. Basically, if Gregory Maxwell wasn't at the agreement, you don't have an agreement.

I disagree. He's smart enough not to participate in closed-door meetings which are counter-intuitive to Bitcoin.

Just so.

But beyond that, this weird fantasy that I am some uniquely important person in Bitcoin is just completely without basis. It's a narative spun by Mike Hearn in an effort to bring down regulatory hellfire on me to drive me out-- since for years I (and most other people actually doing the work of supporting the system) was very careful to keep a low profile, it didn't work.

Having my support on something doesn't magically make it a success. The fact that efforts I support are often a success is much more because I have nearly a lifetime of relevant experience that lets me identify initiatives which are likely to be successful and I prefer to spend my time working on those... than it is because I or anyone else has some kind of magical influence. ... regardless of what stories some people find advantageous to tell.

so when Luke JR makes a revision where he changes segwits
MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 1000000;
to
MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000;
will you support it. or will to decline it

I think a far more important question for gmaxwell is this:

So if this rumored hard fork actually occurred, where would you put your effort if the majority of core developers wanted to call it an altcoin and block support for it from being added to core?

This question is important because my belief has always been that if something else wins out, core will adjust and may again become the best client, however, what the best developers do is far more important than what core does. So as a developer with "nearly a lifetime of relevant experience" that helps to "identify initiatives which are likely to be successful" I'm interested in whether he would jump ship if he had to (supporting classic or unlimited, for instance) and also in whether or not he would believe he had to (vs expecting the ~75%/+ longer fork to die off without confidence in the ~25%/- fork concurrently being so shaken that there is no longer a "successful initiative" on either "side").