If we stick to this notion of "you dislike how things currently operate, you go else where" this means there is nothing more to discuss on bitcoin, we use it as is, and wait for everyone to be a millionaire.


But people talking about big blocks are not trying to impose anything, they know neither you nor them can change the rules, they are just having a conversation, you should stick to debating the pros and cons or ignore them, telling them to move else where is the textbook definition of " this is my blockchain, you are not allowed to oppose shit".

Those are discussing an ongoing "issue" in Bitcoin , telling them to go use BSV as if you think they don't know that already is pretty funny, again you here is plural (English sucks where everyone is referred by "you" )



How do you know? What if I point to a person who is a better coder than the average core dev and still wants bigger blocks? Did you not say it is a free world and every voice counts? Why is it suddenly Luke's voice is more important than stompy?


I would trust stompix over Luke every day of the week, because despite the former not being a part of the core team, he does not propose censorship and writes a bunch of b.s on thier pool page, or tell people it is not okay to store arbitrary data on the blockchain when he himself stores his catholic prayers on the blockchain.

Also, I am not saying their impact are equal, of course not, but they should both be treated equally, people will accept everything core throws at them, but when someone else says anything it is always "go away, use xyz coin, your opinion js stupid unless core devs propose it"

Now let me ask you a question, if theymos  started a thread suggesting "bigger blocks", would you or anyone else tell him to "go use BSV"? 

What if it was Greg Maxwell?

Do you honestly think 4MB blocks is enough and that we should not go above them?