Quote from: jbreher on March 22, 2017, 05:42:23 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on March 22, 2017, 05:02:50 PM

Quote from: jbreher on March 22, 2017, 04:47:09 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on March 22, 2017, 04:21:30 PM

But I have stated what happens, which it is always devolves to majority-collusion.

My point is that this is outcome is not affected by the cap on maxblocksize.

Might be true. I've been pondering that today. If BU can successfully attack the token holders, then that should be proof that even small 1MB blocks don't stop mining cartelization/centralization.

We don't think of it as an attack, but as an upgrade. I haven't participated in mining in years, yet I am convinced that BU delivers more value to me than does the core plan.

Quote

So if BU was sincere, they could demonstrate it by including the necessary fixes to enable LN in their planned HF.

Again, BU is not resistant to a malleability fix (at least as far as I discern). As recent events display however, we have a dev bandwidth issue. We must prioritize the things we wish to accomplish. Abolition of this stupid centrally-planned production quota is the most pressing problem faced by Bitcoin. So we are focusing upon that. Longer term, we would like to enable LN, but not with the current built-in anticompetitive disincentive for on-chain transactions (i.e., the aforementioned maxblocksize limit).

(And LN is still possible without a malleability fix, but that is kind of an aside, in that it is acknowledged that such is suboptimal).

My reaction is you need better communication with the token holders. My thought or idea is to raise the level of competence, PR, communication and planning on all levels BEFORE attacking.

You don't win my confidence by having incorrect technological arguments such as the unlimited block size equilibrium white paper which is a meaningless model and can only serve to fool n00bs, which doesn't impress those who try to understand the technology deeply. Core is able to impress us, because they get their technological facts more well organized.

And your promises are as trustable as Core's promises (e.g. to increase block size with HF after softfork is approved), so why should we believe BU will do what you say they will do.

Perhaps if you get more of the community behind your with better communication and admitting that the mining is centralized and there is nothing we can do about it, then perhaps more resources will come your way.

But I guess they've strategized on this already and have reasons for doing what they are doing? Perhaps the war is fake and pre-planned to shake cheap BTC from the trees? Or to sustain the illusion of decentralization? I think the last item is the most likely. Neither Core nor the miners want us to realize the system is centralized, so they fight proxy issues instead of going directly to the point:

Quote from: iamnotback on March 22, 2017, 05:11:39 PM

Point being that the small blocks = decentralization might be an erroneous strawman argument constructed to fool us into thinking we couldn't have larger blocks sooner.

Why is Core trying to fool us? Is it to keep the illusion of decentralization alive? Perhaps some of you who are more intimately familiar with Core's arguments can clue me in. I haven't been following all the wranglings over the past year.