Quote from: anunymint on July 01, 2018, 10:14:01 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on July 01, 2018, 09:40:14 PM

there's no other outcome possible than the masses bending to your glorious vision

Did you already forget that I pointed out to you in my prior reply to you, that in Bitcoin the masses do not get a vote?

Of course they don't get a "vote". That's not how Bitcoin works. We've surpassed the primitive concept of voting:

Quote from: DooMAD on November 01, 2017, 11:21:35 AM

Who wants a vote? A vote is just the act of asking for someone's permission, masquerading as freedom. Plus, when voting, you're usually only selecting someone to speak for you, in effect surrendering your freedom. Screw that.

Bitcoin (or at least, crypto in general) is better than any democracy. It's real freedom. You just do stuff and see if people then agree. You don't vote on it or wait for someone in power to say it's okay. Code what you like, run what you like. You'll be matched up with people who agree with you and you'll build a blockchain together. Everyone gets what they think they want while market forces and competition sort it all out in the end. Only the most successful chain with the most economic activity and most proof of work gets to be called Bitcoin. If people find their chain isn't as successful as others, it's up to them to build on it and make it better, or resign themselves to transacting with an altcoin and hope it has sufficient value to be worth their time. If it's not worth it, go back to the better chain. There are literally no barriers to stop you, despite what some here might say.

That's all that's happening here. People overreact and get all dramatic about it. But it's just people with different visions of what's best, doing their own thing. No voting required. And it's good for Bitcoin (again, despite what some here might say). Bitcoin will naturally adapt and grow stronger by taking the best code from the open market at any given time. And ultimately, users still decide what that code is, there's just no point in having a stupid vote about it. Democracy should aspire to be more like Bitcoin, not the other way around.

Remember that voting is always based on what people (and usually corrupt liars at that) say they're going to do. And you have to trust them to do it when you vote for them. You don't get any guarantees. You might not get what you voted for even if the person or party you vote for win. Bitcoin is better than that. You make an informed decision based on what has actually been made. There's no trust involved. It's right there for you to see it all in black and white. No surprises, no u-turns, no failure to enact a policy because the opposition party prevented it. If there's anything in the code you don't like, you don't have to run it. Name one vote in history that ever achieved that feat.

Voting has no place here. It's better without it.

Quote from: DooMAD on April 14, 2018, 10:33:20 PM

People place far too much emphasis on the supposed panacea of voting. At best, voting for an elected representative is a paltry impersonation of democracy. When you stop and think about it, it's not really freedom at all if you need to have the permission of someone in authority to have an election in the first place. And having to select someone from a predetermined list of candidates isn't freedom either. Neither is votes being aggregated and grouped by arbitrary lines on a map, which those in authority can redraw to sway the result. Once your elected representative speaks for you, they have all the freedom, you just surrendered your freedom to them. Voting is based on what people claim they're going to do, but once the voting has finished, how many times do the election pledges actually come to fruition? There's no guarantee of getting the things you believed you were voting for even when your preferred candidate wins. There's also little to prevent "lobbying", otherwise known as "corruption", so money will always influence policy far more than any vote ever will.

No one gets a "vote". But what they do get is total freedom and self-determination. They're not going to surrender that by following a chain that would steal from them and only serve the interests of a few self-obsessed elitists.

Go ahead and build your 0.5.4 chain. See who takes part. I normally consider it ill-conceived to preempt what the market will do, but I think it's safe to say they won't follow that abomination of a chain. Just like they won't follow a "Bitcoin" chain with blacklisting or an increased supply above 21 million. You clearly perceive immutability as Bitcoin's most important aspect, but others feel that decentralisation is the more important quality (and would also argue we haven't sacrificed immutability anyway). I don't know how you expect to maintain a decentralised system when the only participants are the limited number of fruitcakes running the 0.5.4 client.

You can't have a decentralised oligarchy, it's self-contradictory. Users won't support a system that doesn't support them and your chain won't survive economically without users. Network effects have a tremendous impact on value and utility. How do you propose your 0.5.4 chain will amass value and utility if only a few zealous cultists are using it? Keep dreaming.