Quote from: Viper1 on May 17, 2017, 05:37:57 PM

Quote from: The One on May 17, 2017, 05:14:36 PM

Quote from: Viper1 on May 13, 2017, 04:31:14 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on May 13, 2017, 04:06:08 PM

Quote from: Viper1 on May 13, 2017, 03:07:25 PM

I'm so tired of all the propaganda. Even if the big block (BU) side could convince me it was the right thing to do (and studying both sides of the argument from an actual technical and risk standpoint failed to do that), I'm so sick of it I would side against them simply due to all the bullshit I hear from that side. You want to win people over, then do it with hard facts, data and logical reasoned debate etc. Franky I think both sides are filled with prima dona arrogant twats. I think segwit is a good idea but I also think the whole hard fork bad, let's not do 2Mb blocks is ridiculous. Taken in it's entirety, I'm "stuck" opposing big blocks and supporting what core is doing.

But we've been there, done that. For example Gavin did actually testing on 8MB blocks 2 years ago. And there are SIMPLE solutions to QH. Everyone knows 2MB would be fine. Not sure would you oppose this because you don't like certain personalities.

Gavin is a really nice guy but I've read a lot of his stuff on here and IMO he's naive when it comes to risks. Funny cause I read a comment he made about that somewhere as apparently others have made the same observation. As I said. IMO 2Mb was a no brainer and I have an issue with core taking a "no hard fork" stance (at least yet as they haven't taken bigger blocks off the table). But when I compare the two from a technical and risk standpoint, I'm forced to go with core. Not because I really want to but because the alternative is far less acceptable to me. And to be clear, I really don't like certain personalities on either side.

And I know you like to bring out Satoshi as if he was an all seeing all knowing deity that foresaw where things would be decades from the time he created bitcoin. But his short little 1 line comments about some of these large issues forces me to question whether he really gave them the sort of serious thought they apparently needed. At the end of the day, much has changed and we don't have a clue what he might think or do now. Anyone pulling out those old one liners as some sort of "proof" is simply trying to use him to suit their agenda.

That's a flawed conclusion. If both are not to your liking then both must be rejected.

It's called compromise and the lesser of two evils. The hard reality is that when it comes to this sort of thing, there are no black and white perfect solutions. It's all just compromises and levels of risk. So you can choose to not make a choice and wait for some other solution. But it won't be perfect and would require compromises anyway.

Compromise on security of the network, future mining fees to secure the network, technical debt by adopting segwit in its current form - no thanks. Compromising when $30bn dollars invested in Bitcoin is plain idiotic. One either gets it right or not. If a mistake is made can it be reversed? If no then no compromise can be made.