Lol, very good.


The point is, we have to assess the forkers on their merits. Are you trying to tell me that Peter Rizun, Gavin Andresen or Mike Hearn wanted what was best for Bitcoin?


The ironic thing is that Gavin essentially agrees with every direction the Core team are going in, he either endorses it or even proposed the same himself. With one big diference: Gavin wanted the blocksize fork to happen first, in 2015. This is what's so ridiculous about both his and your position; there's nothing wrong with increasing the blocksize in principle, but

only at the right moment in time to suit what the software, the Bitcoin network and the underlying internet infrastructure can support.

2015 was not the right time, and neither was it this year. So that means that software imporvements to increase the capcity of the network are needed, not crude increases in resource usage that threaten the network.

I know you refuse to see that this is the sensible option, but the 25+ Core devs don't see it that way. About 3-4 devs see it your way, and the reasoning hasn't convinced anyone to take a risk on their (literally) backwards schedule to implement scaling up transaction capacity. Like you say, you're welcome to argue or code as you please, but this business of using nothing but bad arguments makes you look like bad losers, at best. And Bitcoin Unlimited and Rizun's tortured logic look plain devious and destructive.