BitProdigy, this list is solely about shills with obvious alterior motives (e.g. altcoin investment, shorting BTC, etc.). And I think even if you support XT it is interesting to see just how many dubious characters also have an agenda that might not even be directly related to XT but to the damage of a hardfork. These people would probably support any other hard forking proposal should it gain public traction.
While I think it is outrageous that somebody sane could even think about supporting XT, I am also a proponent of reasonable discussion and you present your arguments in a respectable way.
The only real benefit of this XT fiasco could be the increased need for core devs to consider increasing the blocksize (in a sensible fashion, not the XT way) and the public realisation of having some core devs in the same company.
But overlooking potentially threating code segments, risking the damage of a hardfork, giving control of the code base to just two people and risking to alianate a large part of Bitcoin's userbase all make supporting XT highly questionable.
rumor has it I admitted to being a shill for XT on a different thread, doesn't that earn me a spot on your list?
P.S. I agree with what you say about the "real benefit" of this XT debacle.
I chose to participate in this thread because I agree with the OP's thought that some people, and some of them rather powerful in the crypto sphere, are deliberately stifling debate. As to whether XT is a good idea, I'm solidly on the fence. Increasing the block size is definitely a good idea. Or at least one possible way to increase tx throughput. Another would be shorter block times with an appropriately smaller block reward to maintain the pace of production while increasing the speed of transactions.
It's not so much that one side is better than the other. The Bitcoin Foundation and core developers have shown a great deal of animosity towards new ideas, and have frankly been far too cooperative with the very people that stand to lose the most if bitcoin does become mainstream. OTOH, forcing the issue like this is pretty much like playing russian roulette with an autoloader.
There are things I like about the XT proposal. It's release, as it was done, is just plain irresponsible. Those that claim otherwise in a reasonable manner, and respond in such a manner when called to account, I've got no problem with. Those who respond with overt censorship, ad-hominem attacks, histrionics, etc clearly do not believe in the merits of their argument. But they believe in something unseen, or else they'd let the thing stand or fall on it's merits.
