I am selling...

I am the author, yes

Added, thanks.
Pretty much.

You sometimes hear people casually say that Theymos may have misappropriated the donated funds. The article provides a series of citations and quotes, which put this allegation into context, so that the reader can see what happened.

I changed it to just one NFT now: https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/65296535135049096320155976335774845627297532954576984939387059871066833813505

Sorry for the confusion

Yes, buyers would need to trsut me to deliver it when requested

You can make an offer if you think the price is too high

It does not come with the paper, you can send the token back to me to redeem for the paper. You can bid less than 600ETH if you like

My NFT is redeamable for the actual paper. That is the difference

Yes, I have sold. Now I am experimenting with this NFT route, where I custody a copy and deliver on redemption.

Now for sale on OpenSea as an NFT

https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/65296535135049096320155976335774845627297532954576984939387059861171229163524

Excellent Condition (Includes all inserts) - Asking price 10 BTC (DM if interested)

Yes


That is why we need to mitigate this risk by taking the action only when Classic looks almost totally defeated, with a 12 month grace period, a 95% activation threshold, in two steps (softfork flagging the hardfork, then the hardfork itself) and only to 2MB or smaller.  There is another risk, which is that we avoid doing a hardfork only to avoid the perception that these aggressive inappropriate attack tactics work.



The level of stupidity in /r/btc is so severe that I even suspect some small blockist agent provocateurs may be contributing to it.

Agreed, its not necessary.  It may be a good idea to help keep fees very low for the next few years.  I do not particularly care about this issue that much, however I do respect some people who think low fees in the short term is very important.


It can happen after segwit

I think Garzik is very likely to have his view of the best interests of the system driving his decisions.  I would have said the same about Gavin, except after the CW fiasco I have little conviction as to his intentions.  I think the best  thing would be for him to stop supporting the counterproductive Classic attack for several months and then revaluate.


I agree.  This resilience does exists to some extent and the more resilient the better.  However we must not be drawn into a false sense of security by thinking the system is perfectly resilient in this respect.  This is why I think the actions of the developers in the HK agreement was unfortunately necessary and somewhat justified.


This is why we should do it form a position of strength.  The Classic node count is down to 15% and the hashrate is around 5.5%.  I still think these metrics are too high for a hardfork to 2MB.  However if they fall further and Core looks stronger, then I think we should implement a hardfork to 2MB.

It looks like Classic/XT may be defeated.  However, let’s try to be as gracious and respectful as we can in our victory.  At least some of the Classic/XT advocates did genuinely have Bitcoin’s best interests at heart, we just disagreed with their methods, we need to still respect them.    Gaining this victory was vital, it demonstrated the rules of the system are resilient, but at the same time weaknesses were exposed in the process.

We need to recognize that the system is not perfect, it is not totally robust and there was (and still is) a genuine risk of a Classic victory.   Therefore it is potentially possible to eliminate an existing protocol rule without strong consensus, in some circumstances. However, hopefully this whole saga has demonstrated that the rules are resilient enough for many practical circumstances.  Recognizing this imperfection, I think we should, from a position of strength, be pragmatic, and as a sign of respect for those people who have hopefully been defeated, implement a change in the limit to 2MB, consistent with the HK agreement.


It is unfortunate that to some it appears as if the miners forced this agreement by duress.  I was at the meeting and your criticism is fair in many respects.  However, we must accept the reality that Bitcoin is not a perfect system and the agreement did occur, had this not happened then Classic may well have activated by now.  I think we need to be pragmatic and to some extent accept the unfortunate reality that the actions of the "dipshits" were necessary.

Looks like Gavin has gone for 75% again.  I cannot understand why such a low threshold is being used.

You are of course correct in that 51% of miners can control all the miner voting.  Implementing a hardfork is a difficult process and a variety of things need to be considered.  Miner voting should not be considered in isolation.

With respect to a one off shift to 2MB, I think there is broad support from users, businesses and miners for this kind of compromise proposal.  However given the controversy, particularity the number of developers who do not want to go down this path, there is elevated risk with this hardfork.  Therefore I think it is prudent to have a mining activation threshold of 95% or more, in order for me to support the hardfork to 2MB.  If miners start orphaning blocks that do not vote their way, many will consider this a serious attack and withdraw support for the hardfork.

However, according to Brian Armstrong the threshold is "only at 70% for classic".

Source: https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/688428800959332352

I consider 70% dangerously low and demonstrates a lack of confidence in consensus by Classic proponents.  It is therefore important for users and node operators to continue to rally behind Core, to prevent a potentially dangerous and catastrophic loss of consensus.  If Classic adopts a 95% activation threshold, then I may switch to supporting Classic.

A lower activation threshold like 75% can be considered an attack by those opposed to the move.  I think 95% is a high enough threshold which demonstrates overwhelming support and should therefore  not be considered an altcoin.
 

There is no mechanism to reach consensus about the blocksize limit, with BU all nodes just set there own limits.  This does not reduce the potential for debate, arguments or central planning.  The community would still need to reach consensus about the blocksize limit in the same way it is trying to now.  The core development team could still try to keep the 1MB limit and miners would still need to make a decision to change to accept larger blocks, the only difference would be the debate may be about values to set in the client, rather than which client to use, which is effectively no significant change from the current status quo.  If we want nodes to dynamically set a blocksize limit, in a way determined by the market, we should use a proposal like BIP100.  BIP100 actually allows miners to dynamically set a blocksize limit and agree with each other on a new limit, BU has no system to enable nodes to agree on the limit.