Re: [2016-11-06] Roger Ver Considers Offering Double Block Rewards To Bitcoin Miners
The only thing I interrupted was a growing dog pile of insult hurling and accusations. I'm all for using forums as an open exchange of ideas, but that's clearly not was I was seeing being demonstrated here. See this thing we're doing now? This is slightly closer to resembling a discussion. Again, you're more than welcome to have your little bandwagons, but that's gonna get called out too. You call it rail-roading, I call it testing the resilience of your ideas. If they're as strong as you claim, they'll hold up. Just like Bitcoin.
That only holds true for people with honest proposals. You seem to be trying to prop up the idea that all the previous hard-fork proposals were well-intentioned, it should be pretty obvious to those with a little discernment that the real idea is to pressurise and destablise Bitcoin with fabricated internal struggles.
You, DooMAD, are throwing gasoline on that particular fire every chance you get. Why?
It's not throwing gasoline on anything to point out that as soon as anyone holds a different opinion to core developers that person is immediately labelled dishonest. Someone dared to commit the (apparently egregious) crime of displaying independent thought and having a mind of their own. People somehow feel strong indignation at this supposed betrayal. If you don't agree, this means you're throwing gasoline on the fire and fabricating internal struggles.
Fuck intentions and honesty. Your preconceptions about them don't matter. Code doesn't have intentions and it can't lie. If the effects of the code are neutral and obvious, I don't care who coded it or how low your opinion of them is. The code will speak for itself and the market will choose the code. This thing is self-regulating. It doesn't have to be a witch hunt unless you want to turn it into one. This all boils down to the mindset of "please shield everyone from this person or people I don't trust because I don't think the rest of the world can be trusted to make their own choice" and "I trust this group of developers more than that one, so everyone should agree with me and reinforce the status quo or scary consequences will happen".
To summarise:
I don't care who you do and don't trust in a trustless system; I don't care who you think should be in control of a system that no one controls; I don't care who you think has permission to edit the code in a permissionless system.
Is there any way I can possibly make that any more clear?