People can use lighting if they want to or not, that is their choice and that is fine. However arbitrarily restricting the blocksize, especially as technology increases for the purpose of incentivizing people to move more of their transactions off chain is wrong. Give people the free choice, if they prefer to use the lighting network over Bitcoin then that is fine and we will not need to increase the blocksize again.
Given the free choice, people will design the most bonkers Bitcoin you can imagine. I'm happy to see Core do it for now; because they're objectively sticking to the cypher-punk credos better than the so-called competition. Maybe an alternative implementation that actually blows the Core teams cypher-punk credentials out of the water could emerge, but until then, it's Core for cypher-punks.
You are admitting here that you do not believe in the collective wisdom of peoples free choice. And that you are happy that Core is attempting to act contrary to this will. I am sorry that you do not understand yet that Bitcoin is governed by the people, but that is the case. I think this is a good thing, you have made it quite clear here that you do not.
Today however, the blocks are filling up and many people do not want a fee market. It is wrong for Core to attempt to unilaterally decide to change the economic policy of Bitcoin in this way. Lighting network is not complete and neither is SegWit,
People want secure bitcoins. "Nothing in this life comes truly for free", as they say, and the only way to pay for that is with fees. Bitcoin basics is at the wiki site.
People can decide for themselves what kind of a Bitcoin they want. Pointing towards a censored wiki site controlled by theymos certainly does reinforce this position of yours.
You say that you support the cypherpunk cause, however the cypherpunks believed and stood for freedom. You are not promoting freedom but its opposite, you are attempting to justify the control of something that is meant to be free.
we can simply increase the blocksize to two megabytes. This will not destroy Bitcoin, as some people claim. This will allow Bitcoin to continue to grow, which is good for both decentralization and global financial freedom.
You know as well as I that both the SegWit fork and a blocksize fork take several month to co-ordinate, and that's just when there actually is a genuine consensus to change. Un-coordinated? Well, both XT and Classic have a current projected fork date of roughly the end of all eternity, so it's not looking so good for that approach.
The people could fork the network tomorrow if they wanted to, or in a few weeks, the majority of Chinese mining pools even stated recently that they will modify the code themselves if it came to it, furthermore Bitcoin Unlimited is live now, and anyone can freely choose to run Bitcoin Unlimited, which will make your node compatible with any blocksize limit proposal supported by the majority of the hashing power.
I think Sgbett responded to this propaganda strategy of yours well:
These people post in such a way to suggest they think they *know* the future, when in fact that is impossible, because the future is uncertain. A statement in which someone claims to know the future is by definition a lie.
Posting that statement repeatedly is exactly what you described when you said "repeat the lie so often that it becomes the truth"
You could accuse me of the same thing "Keep at it; not long now" could allude to me thinking that one particular outcome is foregone conclusion, but it could also just be that I think that a resolution either way could be coming soon. The crowd will decide what they decide.
Classic - its not even been released yet. So here you cannot possibly say it has been rejected by the community, but you have. The "In reality" makes it really hard for you to argue that you weren't presenting this as fact.
