ck,

TL;DR: "radical" because its never been done before or proposed before?  I'll take that as a compliment of my innovation.  But if it has merit then maybe we should do it.  I would greatly appreciate constructive feedback.


Hi I'm Praxeology.  I'm a software engineer, Austrian school economist, and a philosopher with various backgrounds including Objectivism and Voluntaryism*.

* Not disclosing my current philosophical or religious beliefs

The account is new because I am new to this place.  I haven't really been interested in ever posting here because I haven't really felt you guys needed me that much... and its risky to stick my head up worried it might get smashed down by the powers-that-be's hammer.  About a month ago I realized that SegWit adoption was being stalled, and I've been working long hours to figure out why and what to do about it.  I've come to the conclusion that block producers are strong arming the user base in order to get control of block size... and in the long term then control of bitcoin policy in general.

The debate of SegWit vs Unlimited, how an individual can judge which one is better, and how an update to bitcoin should be selected and activated all depend on:
- Understanding of software engineering and Bitcoin software
- Understanding of Austrian school economics
- Understanding of Objectivist metaphysics, and ethics from the perspective of special interest groups

My task is to help everyone discover that Bitcoin is a money system built for the benefits of a specific special interest group.  That we should identify others in the special interest group and work towards making the money better for us.  Not allow it to be compromised or progress overly delayed by the opinions of people in other special interest groups who have contradictory goals.  This is necessary for a User Activated Soft Fork to happen in a world where the Core sympathetic special interest group is the minority*.

* we may be the minority in numbers, but we are the entrepreneurs, the people who create price floors in market cap.
* people who want sound money are a minority in the US population.  Otherwise the popular vote would have never permitted 1913/1933 and/or quickly restored decentralized money.
* I have yet to date not been a participating member of Core, and I only began participating in the social bitcoin community about a month ago.

We have used Bitcoin to help protect us from theft, censorship, monopoly transaction fees, and to be able to stop contributing our purchasing power and work towards the goals of the corrupt money printers.  I am part of the special interest group that wants competition in money to achieve the goal of having this kind of money.  I want to use a money where verification, ownership, and policy decisions are performed by end users (distributed), money supply policy is set at onset and never changed, and the ledger state is determined by the policy I decide for myself combined with the greatest proof of work.  I believe that Bitcoin Core is also working toward these objectives.

Block candidate producers are only service providers to us.  They work for us.  It was a mistake to give them the power to choose policy change (BIP9).  The mistake was the assumption that miners were in the same special interest group as other users in the bitcoin ecosystem (and particularly us in our special interest group).

Software updates, and particularly policy changing software updates, should entirely be up to individuals/organizations that use it.  They choose which currency/policy they want to use, they have all the authority, its an entirely voluntary system.  Bitcoin Update Board helps individuals do this with relevant information in a system that I haven't seen anyone else propose.