Increase the block size and if Core takes to long to do it then an alternative implementation of Bitcoin will.
"IF?"
"IF?" "IF?"From where did this wild "IF" suddenly appear?
All summer long, you Gavinistas were screaming that Core has
already taken too long, and as a result Bitcoin is (for the greater profit of Blockstream) choking and dying, thus justifying
[email protected] and
[email protected]'s governance coup.
Now that XT got fukkin' rekt, you want to backpedal to a conditional hedge?
There is no conditional hedge. Bitcoin is moving forward with bigger blocks, whether you like it or not.
Bitcoin is not moving forward with bigger blocks anytime soon. You failed to specify when your assertion will be true and what form it will take. It is the action of a coward to retreat from such refutable specifics into the non-falsifiable warm fuzzy generalities of "eventually."
"If Core takes too long" is most certainly a conditional hedge. "If" is the hedge, "Core takes too long" is the condition.
That is a shift in advocacy, because previously the Gavinista narrative was 'Core has already taken way too long, so it's time for the nuclear option of a Great Schism.'
Maybe you don't understand why changing from a present-tense declaration to a future-tense conditional hedge is a shift in advocacy. But the rest of us do.
Perhaps you don't appreciate why shifts in advocacy, as performative contradictions, destroy your credibility. But the rest of us do.
You are either too stupid to know you are shifting advocacy, too stupid to understand why that's bad, or are trying to be sneaky with a subtle but dishonest retreat from your original position.
None of those options reflect well on you, and all are in line with our expectation that Hearn's fanboys will seek to mislead the public.
