Quote from: AgentofCoin on May 18, 2017, 12:19:39 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on May 17, 2017, 11:11:22 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on May 17, 2017, 10:19:33 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on May 17, 2017, 09:50:50 PM

Everyone keeps using the word "compromise", but no one is actually budging on their stance. Most of the people fixated on increasing the blocksize still want an increase of at least 200% and most of the people fixated on not touching the 'base' blocksize still want 0% increase until an unspecified time in the future.

It seems obvious when you say it, but apparently it has to be spelled out in no uncertain terms: An actual compromise would require both camps to soften their stance a little. Is anyone prepared to do that? Stop drawing lines in the sand over what you won't accept and start talking about what you will accept. And for what must be the dozenth time, the blocksize doesn't have to be a whole number and nor does it have to be static.

There can be no compromise in this debate since it is about the hardfork
mechanism itself, not scaling. The scaling debate is only the tool currently
being used to push for a hardfork. In theory, if scaling was the only issue,
there are many different answers that already exist without using a hardfork.

Big Blockers want to use a hardfork, Small Blockers want to use optimizations/
second layers/softforks. So, what is the compromise between those two sides?

There is no compromise for that, only capitulation to one or the other.
By offering a combination of both, it defeats the main cause of the other
position. It ignores the true meaning behind this impasse. That is why this
debate will continue till capitulation or contentious hardfork.

Anyone who believes that is clearly in denial. Sooner or later there will be a necessary change that can't be achieved via soft fork. Hardforks can't be avoided forever, so everyone needs to stop soiling themselves at the mere thought of one. Also, hardforks don't preclude optimisations and second layers, so you can cease that decidedly underhanded insinuation right there. Are you seriously saying you would have opposed SegWit if it had been proposed as a hardfork?

In the event of a contentious hard fork, I suspect the narrative and rhetoric on these boards would automatically be that the miners forking away were the cause of the split, but history will judge that it takes two parties to have an argument. Those too belligerent to be reasoned with, who had already closed their mind to anything that wasn't a softfork, would be deemed equally culpable.

It has nothing to do with belief, it has to do with what is occurring now.
The basis for the current issue is not scaling, it is related to the hardfork
mechanism itself. You ignored what I stated, which is that there is no
compromise between two opposing forces. One must give way to the other,
like all things in life. You disagree with that.

What is delusional is thinking that there can be a middle ground between a
hard or soft fork. In almost all cases, it will need to fall under one or the other.
If not, where is this answer? Where is the middle fork? Currently, it does not
exist and thus why this debate still exists and goes in circles.

The debate is not about "no more hardforks forever", nor did I ever say such,
the issue is whether our technological level has reached the point where we can
do it now without sacrificing current security. Obviously, 10 years from now, a 2-4
MB blocksize hardfork is extremely doable and should preserve the current security
(the only issue then is possible intentional chain split as a malicious attack). The
debate is whether we should do a hardfork now, when technological advancement
has slowed or some think, stopped.

If SegWit was a hardfork, I would equally oppose it today as I do any simple
2MB hardfork. Core Devs developed SegWit in a softfork-able way for this very
purpose, to preserve the verifying nodes who do not wish to upgrade. If they had to
do it in a hardfork way, I am not sure they would have proposed it. When it was
provided as a softfork, they thought the community and miners would be thrilled.
Instead, with some major miners and some in the community, it is seen as bad since
it is not by the hardfork mechanism alone.

This shows that the issue is not scaling, but something else entirely. But interestingly,
according to recent development work, it is alleged that softforks can now be designed
to perform everything that hardforks can do, without the node loss. So we may have
learned that the hardfork/softfork mechanism is a result of our current lack of
understanding of Bitcoin and that only softforks are actually necessary throughout it's
lifespan. Hardforks in that scenario, are only used for serious emergencies where we
must accept security loss to prevent massive immediate failure.

My only point in my comment was that "compromises" may be a misunderstanding
of Bitcoin and how it was intended to function. Satoshi did not compromise and
didn't intended to create a system that needs to have compromises. There will
always be a losing party in this type of system due to the blockchain system itself.
Finding a middle path, between the hard and soft fork, if possible, would have
already occurred. What is occurring now is a slow negotiation that the community
needs to go through till they inevitably learn that it is futile and they have been
confused.

When this is all said and done, someone will give in or perform a contentious
hardfork. The term "compromise", is like Santa Claus, its what we tell the children
to keep them busy. Something will occur eventually, but a "compromise" is unlikely.

If everyone just followed the principles of the original whitepaper as a "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", instead of trying to change it into something else then there would be no "losing party." The only losers would be those trying to turn Bitcoin into .....