Quote from: ikeo on July 27, 2017, 04:03:26 PM

If Core holds onto this like you are saying, there will be a split.

The same can be said to the parties of the Silbert Accord. Both camps have a great deal of support and neither can reasonably back down this time. There will almost certainly be a controversial hardfork in November, quite possibly dwarfing the August 1st drama.

Quote from: ikeo on July 27, 2017, 04:03:26 PM

Also Gavin being the lead, his signature should've represented the team. Because the team changed, doesn't mean the agreement changes with it.

Gavin passed the reigns to Wladimir in April, 2014. Gavin's last commit to Bitcoin Core was in April, 2016. The agreement was signed on May, 2017.

Quote from: ikeo on July 27, 2017, 04:03:26 PM

I think it's healthy for bitcoin to grow up.

Excerpts from the January, 2016 statement by Bitcoin Core I referenced earlier:

"Our vision for Bitcoin is to expand the flexibility of the system to work efficiently at extremely high scale, while at the same time maintaining security and the core properties of decentralization that make Bitcoin unique."

"Changes to the Bitcoin consensus rules can be made through either soft forks or hard forks (see Appendix A)."

"It turns out it is possible to add almost any new feature with a soft fork. Occasionally, hard forks may have some benefits, and if there is near-universal agreement, these benefits may outweigh the downsides. Except for these rare cases, soft forks are to be preferred."

Evidently, you're in agreement with the Bitcoin Core team on this.

Quote from: ikeo on July 27, 2017, 04:03:26 PM

Businesses and countries have to sit on the side to see who will win. Bitcoin big block or Bitcoin w. SegWit. Competition is not only healthy, it is needed to prove which iteration will be more widely adopted.

Well said, although I would say that which branch ends up being more widely adopted is a side issue. The freedom of choice is the thing.

Quote from: ikeo on July 27, 2017, 04:03:26 PM

This could be looked at in the future as an attack on bitcoin by one side or the other and the decentralized nature allowed both to try and see which version actually works better.

Bitcoin Core, by not allowing themselves to be dictated to by the parties of the Silbert Agreement, is exercising the very freedoms you and I both champion. The same freedoms Satoshi exercised when he decided to try and build his own money.

Quote from: ikeo on July 27, 2017, 04:03:26 PM

At this point, its preventing legitimate traffic and we know it.

I don't doubt you, but what is legitimate traffic? What if, in the future, the amount of legitimate traffic is far more than we know how to accommodate in a trustless, decentralised way?

Quote from: ikeo on July 27, 2017, 04:03:26 PM

From the blog post in your link... It's a choice.. Some people would rather leave onchain vs. adding "additional layers" while breaking up the original blocks.

Quote

Our vision for Bitcoin is to .... by providing the foundation for additional layers on top of the protocol and interfaces with other systems.

Quote

... users always retain the choice over which software they run.

I completely agree. Some good points.