Re: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!
You want to justify why segwit2x is needed? What points do you want to make that are supposedly going to inform this conversation?
Not particularly. The only point that needs to be made is that open source and permissionless means no one has to justify anything.
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you understand what is consensus? Do you understand what is working within the system to attempt to persuade and to make changes? Do you understand that segwit2x is an attempt to avert the system and to destroy it and to create another system? The current system is not broken nor authoritarian, it is largely merit based, so if you have arguments and evidence that have merits then you can present and propose such arguments and evidence in order to attempt to change the system.. that is not despotism.. that is open to allowing facts and logic to affect change that possibly could achieve consensus if the fact and logic are sufficiently persuasive to enough peeps.
Do you understand consensus? It certainly doesn't mean everyone has to play nice and agree all the time. It means the exact opposite of that. It means anyone can run the software they want to run and they will be synchronised with users who agree with them. Consensus is participatory, not coerced. Your definition of consensus is everyone has to agree with you all the time. That's a pretty flawed definition.
The status quo is that bitcoin is not broken, and accordingly, if you want to change bitcoin, then you have burdens to present evidence and logic to show how improvements can be made..
Show me in the code where it says that. You can invent whatever constantly moving goalposts your imagination can muster, but it's all just words at the end of the day. There's no burden on anyone to present anything. Stop talking out of your arse.
and there is nothing near consensus regarding the 2x part ... so attempts to force 2x without consensus remains a renegade attack.
What force? Show me where this supposed force is, exactly.
I heard that there is going to be a hardfork in mid november... seems like force to me. How is that not force? Small group of people attempting to sabotage (or they say "change" bitcoin").
A hardfork is categorically neither force nor sabotage. If they were to perpetrate a 51% attack on your preferred chain, that would be an act of sabotage. There's willful malice involved in such an act. Until then, it clearly isn't sabotage. Forking away is not an act of force. Insisting that they do what you want them to do and giving them no freedom to choose for themselves would be an act of force, so it's fortunate you aren't in any position to do that. I'm sure you'd love to if you could, though.
To me, it looks like two groups willingly going their own separate ways because they are unable to reconcile their differences, except that one group seems to be bitching about it a whole lot more than the other.
BCH is not good enough? Oh you want another fork because BCH does not seem to be working? Each or these seem to be various minority and loud mouth whiner attacks, rather than genuine attempts to create a better bitcoin.
Maybe you shouldn't have done such a great job at selling the benefits of SegWit. Talk about victim of your own success.
I honestly don't see how it's such a stretch of the imagination that someone might want to create a fork to try out SegWit with a larger blocksize. It's hardly revolutionary thinking. And at the end of the day, it's all useful data going forward.
You are free to transact on whatever chain you please.
Thanks for permission, and who is even talking about that kind of freedom to transact and freedom to chose chains, except for your just raising this issue now? Actually freedom to transact and to chose chains is a given
So if that's "a given" (which I agree with), how do you logically also argue that the freedom for users and miners to secure a chain you don't agree with is an attack? I mean, you can't transact on a chain that no one is securing. I know you're not that dumb. So how do we have this naturally given right to transact on a proposed chain which you can't abide any miners securing? Chicken or egg much?
No one can "force" you to be on a chain you don't want to be on.
Huh? Of course, there can be various kinds of forced changes in all kinds of ways in this world of ours, and in the end we make choices about how we want to deal or not deal with the various changes whether the changes are forced or not. So possibly in the end, I am not referring to anything about myself being forced, and in that regard, you seem to be changing the topic and engaging in a bit of red herring argumentation.
You used the word "force" in specific regard to the fork:
Quote
so attempts to force 2x without consensus remains a renegade attack.
If you have mining gear, you can point it wherever you damn well please. It's not an act of force for them to point it at a chain you don't personally approve of. They don't owe you anything. Your opinions don't factor into their decision making process, only your fees do. So it's up to you and the participants of your preferred chain to make it worth their attention if you don't like the sound of their new chain. I keep hearing talk about the certainty of this "economic majority", so surely that in and of itself should be sufficient, right? The miners will naturally be drawn to the most profitable chain. If you're so certain that's your chain, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. They're going to waste their hashpower pursuing a completely worthless chain. Right? So what's the problem?
The hardforker attackers are lacking in facts or logic to merit their attack and they are not willing or able to work within the existing bitcoin system, and therefore they are set upon attacking from without while attempting to act as if they are the "saviors of bitcoin." Again, more nonsense. 
What's nonsense is the insane notion that when they don't agree with you, they're still wrong to leave. How do you square that decidedly circular logic? I'm serious about this one. It's by far the biggest logical fallacy in your arguments. How do you honestly propose they work within the system if their ideas are inherently incompatible with it? Explain that. Please.