If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.
That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal. If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things. It's a straw man argument.
The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core.
Hard to argue with that.
That isn't evidence that it is broken.
You are in denial then. XT is a direct cause of Core decision process being broken.
Now you are moving the goal post from bitcoin is broken to the decision making process is broken, which is it? Let me guess, both are broken!
Mike's point always has been about Core decision making process and that's why he and Gavin created XT.
They created XT so as to solve only the decision making process that is absent within Core? I see the point of scaling, but this one just got me, also those somewhat unclear intentions of Mike Hearn on wanting a 'dictator' to decide for what's best in the community.
His argument being: I can't be a real dictator over bitcoin (only bitcoinXT) as any body can fork the code as we just did. He has a point though.
A few posts before this one, you said that bitcoin is broken so that we need to fix things up. Another few more posts, you said that Gavin and Hearn created XT so as to fix the 'consensus making process' that is lacking in Core. I'm not a pro on economy, tech, coding or anything above technical level on bitcoin, but I see that pushing this 8MB max block size limit isn't necessary yet. Scaling? That is too much for a scale! We don't even fill a 1MB block on most cases. .4MB is the largest I've seen even if transaction numbers peaked. And the approach of 'fixing things when the problem is present' doesn't sound appealing to me either (the approach of the Core guys), but come on, 8MB is too high for a limit. I doubt that we will ever see an eighth of that limit being filled within the next years to come.
What's the problem then? 8 mb being just a limit.
The problem is how we get there. It looks very much like we are being steered into making a premature decision that makes it harder for us to have a say over future decisions. We have a few devs who have created what they think is a solution to a future problem and we have coinwallet.eu trying to force the issue now. So it looks very much like we are being pressured to make a decision when we don't need to and obviously that is creating blowback.
Well, you can say we don't need to make a decision now as much as you want but those behind Coinwallet clearly disagree and are putting their money where their mouth is. It is this "we can wait forever" attitude that is creating all this mess.
