Re: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!
My point was that the people you've taken exception to are not "outside" the system, except possibly by your own unique definition.
That seems to be a product of your own construction, to assert that I am defining attackers as "outsiders." Merely that I denigrate the motives of attackers does not mean the same thing as defining them as outsiders, as you seem to be ascribing to me for some seemingly self-serving and perhaps simplification of my arguments reasons.
Then you've either got a short memory or a screw loose:
So, yeah, maybe there are going to be instances in which changes from the outside (by force) are successful - however, I am referring to systems, such as bitcoin, that have been maintaining.. and there are challenges from within and from without - however the hardfork that we are referring to is a challenge from without
This is you calling them outsiders. You draw a clear line of distinction between people who work within "the system" (or at least what your warped definition of "the system" is, but I'll come to that later) and those who develop their own clients or declare hashrate for alternative client forks.
These people are very much involved in the Bitcoin space. You merely choose to define anyone who doesn't agree with a certain dev team as an "outsider" and you're trying to make others do the same by attempting to control the narrative.
Again, you are mischaracterizing and also seem to be ascribing me more power than I have... thanks for that... NOT.
Nope, we clearly saw you say that. Here it is again:
I think that I have already sufficiently referred to the difference between trying to change matters from within or trying to change systems by attacking.
Anyone who doesn't play nice with your preferred gatekeepers are outsiders and attackers. This is clearly how you see it. Why deny it when it's what you really think? You can't say it on two separate occasions and then deny saying it.
Well if you are going to work outside of the system and attack the system, then you can do whatever the fuck you want
Whoops, make that three separate occasions. But sure, this is all just "a product of my own construction".
My stance is that "justify" doesn't even come into it. It's not a thing. I do find it interesting that you used the word "justify" (or a variation of it) no less than 4 times in that paragraph, though. You seem to feel strongly that there should be a reason or some sort of rationalisation for every single act in Bitcoin, but in my mind, that's actually incompatible with the more important aspect of permissionless. What happens when something isn't justified?
Again, you seem to be overstating the case..
Who decides when that's the case? What are the consequences? Who enforces that? It all starts to sound a bit permissioned when the topic of justification crops up.
Yes, you are attributing too much power to my making comments in a bitcoin thread.
If Bitcoin insisted on justification, there would have to be someone in charge to approve things. That would be a weakness in my view.
Yeah, make up shit and then argue the counter-case until you are blue, it does not matter.
What's this clusterfuck of selective quoting? And I'm not "making shit up", I'm pointing out the sheer, abject futility of you asking for justification in a permissionless system. Maybe if you stopped deconstructing every paragraph and taking every single sentence out of context that might have made sense to you (but everyone watch as you do it again in your next post). The only "justification" anything needs is the market itself. If there is a gap in the market, someone will naturally step in to fill that gap. Hence multiple competing clients. They don't all have to meet your lofty standards or have one particular dev team's approval to "justify" their existence.
I also think Bitcoin is great. I just happen to also think it's resilient enough not to be killed by a true test of its consensus mechanism. And what "tactic"? They did try to change it from within, but that was unsuccessful. And fair enough. So it was naturally time for some developers to start doing their own thing. There is no other way to create what they want to create without a hardfork. It's the only option left open to them.
That's crazy if you really believe that there are no other options... fucking crazy.
Okay, let's see:
Step 1 - submit pull request for larger base blocksize - rejected
Step 2 - ...
Help me out here? What's the next option?
Fix the pull request and submit it again. provide facts and/or arguments that would get more support for the unneccesary position, and maybe some time down the road, your position will be adopted when it becomes justified by facts and/or logic.
Exactly. Keep asking for permission in a permissionless system. Get approval from that centralised GitHub in a decentralised system. It's only consensus when that one particular dev team say it is, right? Don't you get it? Your warped definition of the Bitcoin "system" has a controlling central power that makes all the decisions. Everyone who doesn't agree with those decisions is apparently an "outsider". That's not how this is supposed to work. Fuck your "challenges from within and from without" idiocy. They are within the system. You just don't understand the system. It's open source. There are no attackers and no outsiders. Only contributors. Not everyone has to contribute to the same GitHub, though. It's one big open free-for-all. Anyone can do anything. Either accept it, or fork off and close your source.