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.
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.
This is probably the most reasonable argument you've presented so far, so I don't know why you couldn't open with that, heh.
It should be noted that SegWit wasn't even on the table when concerns over the maximum throughput first arose, but now that it is, I am quite happy for us to experiment with that. Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't implement Segwit and other optimisations. I'm happy to have Lightning available as an option for those who wish to use it. But I am absolutely adamant that the average user shouldn't be forced into using Lightning, or worse still, forced off-chain into some hideous realm of digital IOUs, because the main chain becomes an exclusive, elitist club for the new one-percenter-wanabees.
I don't see that as a "bad argument". I honestly and passionately believe that would be genuinely damaging to Bitcoin if it were to happen. As such, I will continue to campaign vociferously against that potential outcome. Contrary to popular belief, I don't want to see the Bitcoin network fall over because no one is able to run a node. But at the same time, I believe it's quite reasonable to assume that two-thirds of a floppy disk won't be enough to cover an entire globe's worth of transactions in the space of ~10 minutes for many years to come. There are no guarantees that SegWit, Lightning and other such proposals will solve the scaling issues. I hope they do. But I still want the option of a blocksize increase if they don't. If I have to rely on an alternative client for that option to be available, so be it.
So, with this in mind, I'm quite horrified by the increasing barrage of authoritarian attitudes towards development and the way in which people perceive network "governance". I actually agree that changes should be made (at the risk of misquoting you) "at the right moment in time to suit what the software, the Bitcoin network and the underlying internet infrastructure can support", but I would simply add afterwards: I trust the market to decide when that time is and what code should regulate it. If I didn't, I wouldn't have any money in it.
In fairness to you, I'll happily concede there are people making arguments that "blockstream are the devil, so we should fork yesterday" or "100mb blocksize, plz" or some other such silliness. I'm not actually one of those people, though. You might recall my amended BIP106 proposal, which I thought was pretty damn moderate, personally. And your post in August last year about BIP106, where you were initially drawn to the idea, leaves me wondering how we keep butting heads over this matter and how I keep being personified as some sort of militant loon.
//EDIT: Okay, before you say it, granted, I'm prone to making somewhat troll-ish bait posts, but only when I think you're being unreasonable.
