Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.
....
I was wrong, that's the dumbest thing I've read in 60 pages. 
Funny that we get anything done in this space because there seems to be quite a few of these kinds of posters.. and after engaging with them for a while, you cannot really conclude that they believe the shit that they are writing.
I'm usually writing stuff that is perfectly logical, but that hurts the religious feelings of indoctrinated people that cannot think outside of their convictions.
Don't come off with this religious framework for your bullshit in order to attempt to attempt patronizing superiority.
Visibly a fundamental such belief is for instance, that full nodes help anything in the decentralization of the power structure of bitcoin, while bitcoin's protocol was EXPLICITLY designed NOT to give any such power to full nodes, and that (contrary to other aspects of bitcoin's design) that part of the design actually reaches its goal: full nodes have NO decision power.
I have not been speaking about nodes. At least so far I have not.
From that ill-informed religious dogma, follow a lot of contradictions, which I patiently illustrate. These obviously logical conclusions are then provoking strong mental resistance by the True Believers, and I have to say that I take some pleasure in poking logical holes in that belief, each time I find another illustration of it.
more patronizing and back patting nonsense.
The idea of minimum block size, absurd as it may sound at first sight, but brilliant as a very secure and easy implementation of a guaranteed bilateral hard fork (which was for instance the problem with BU, that was unilateral) is again hitting such a dogmatic opposition, while there isn't any to be had.
If there is one block that has a minimum blocksize, then I see nothing wrong with that, but it seems that the mistake was to have a minimum blocksize upon the implementation of the 2mb hardfork that would would continue for every block..
Even a non-technical person like myself cans see the absurdity in the logic of such a situation if that is how the software plays out.. a locking in of minimum blocksizes. sounds absurd right on its face, and no religion is needed to reach such conclusion.
Apart from big users (such as exchanges) and of course, mining pools, *nobody needs to store, transmit, or verify* the block chain, so if these entities can afford the resources to handle "a few DVD a week", bitcoin will work, and as their investments in bitcoin are WAY beyond the cost of "handling a few DVD a week", there's no problem. A dedicated Joe can also have his "a few DVD a week" in his basement, but he only does that *for his own fun*.
Sounds like unnecessary bloat to me.
This is hurting of course the fundamental belief system of bitcoin, and one "shouldn't waste computing and network resources because poor Joe and his old second hand Dell desktop on his 56K modem will not handle this and Joe is important in bitcoin". It isn't. Joe's second-hand full node has nothing to say.
no need to denigrate joe and his capacity and require $100k investments by everyone who wants to participate.
But this cannot be heard by true bitcoin believers even though it was the core of bitcoin's design. Bitcoin is now built on "wasting resources" where almost a billion dollar is wasted a year, but one is discussing about the craziness of copying a few DVD a week on those few data centres that are the essence of bitcoin, and do take, in any case, all decisions.
This whole line of discussion sounds like discussion of a non-issue...
If there is no need for increasing the blocksize then you are talking about irrelevancies..
And furthermore, this area of the discussion seemed to have gotten started by segwit2x fucking up the code and making stupid ass changes with questionable impacts and seeming to trick folks by sneaking in dumb and tricky language. So yeah, let's double down and attempt to justify why their software is good and necessary, when it seems to be neither in part because it is tricky and sloppy.
When you read such stuff, you know how far gone people are in deluded group think. And yes, it is well known that people putting logical arguments on the table that hurt the fundamental dogma's of group think are badly considered by the indoctrinated. That's what religious wars are all about.
No need for me to continue to respond to your ongoing strawman nonsensical and lacking in evidence religious dogma allegations.
