Quote from: DooMAD on March 20, 2019, 08:00:52 PM

Take two. Leaving the personalities out of it this time and focusing purely on the arguments. I should also stress that leaving that one specific personality out of this topic means I would prefer they kept it civil too. I want to hear opinions from the community about the following:

Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities? Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes? If you had to choose, which takes priority? Freedom? Or ensuring everyone agrees?
Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement? Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress? Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well? How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade? Do they have cause to complain? Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise? Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change? Does this weaken or bypass consensus?
Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible? Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to? Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules? And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks?
If you run a full node, are you fully aware of what rules it enforces? Do you keep up to date with the latest changes? Do you compile the code yourself so you know exactly what is going on? Or do you blindly update your node without checking what the code actually does?
Most important of all, does anyone genuinely believe Core are "in control" of the Bitcoin network? Or do you think those securing the chain (both non-mining full nodes and miners) are ultimately the ones who make the decisions? Do you think some developers have too much influence? Should there be a larger number of dev teams? Does Bitcoin have a level playing field?

While I'm curious on all these points, I'm not honestly expecting answers to every single last one of them. Just express what you feel confident about.

Obviously, bitcoin biggest asset is its freedom. You cannot please everyone, take that into your head. Going back, freedom is the biggest asset if bitcoin because it let its users to use it in everything they want. You can use it to buy your needs. You can also use it investment like in hodl. You can even use it for you to be able to play on fair gaming sites that everyone does for them to have enjoyment and to remove boredom. You can use it to almost everything, unlike the fiat money that it's like you have always been tracker to all of your transactions.

Bowly88

Posts

Merits