I assert that seg wit is a decent developing next step
You will note that I did not challenge the above. I only challenged the absolute twaddle that 'segwit represents some sort of status quo'.
You are either reading too much into what I am saying or mischaracterizing what I am saying if you believe that I am characterizing the status quo as something that happens to be changes in progress. Surely, it seems quite likely that seg wit is going to become the status quo, but of course it is currently a work in progress in terms of how it is being developed and how it is going to unroll and the extent of support that it has.... and surely the level of support on an ongoing basis seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of seg wit going forward and conclusions that overall seg wit is going to bring lots of utility and power to the bitcoin space.
Generally when I refer to the status quo in my various posts on this blocksize limit raising topic, I am frequently asserting that both XT and Classic have failed to meet their evidentiary burden of production and persuasion in order to convince the status quo to adopt them or to work on their adoption. Saying that XT/Classic have failed in this regard is not the same as saying that seg wit has succeed in this regard, even though likely I have said both, and even though of course, all of us should continue to recognize that seg wit remains a work in progress that is advancing little by little and continues to enjoy overwhelming levels of support demonstrating that its chances of becoming part of the status quo is quite likely (even though that outcome remains part of the future).
I mean, I have misgivings about The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, but I did not bother to assert them in this exchange. Only your blatant falsehood. Perhaps you should reflect upon your fact/speculation ratio, as you are presenting your conclusions as fact.
Why does it matter so much about what I say? Anyone can take what I say with a grain of salt and also anyone can read the level of support that I give (or not) for my various positions and decide for themselves whether they agree or not. I don't claim to be any kind of expert, and I give whatever level of support that I decide is necessary under the circumstances.
Sure, maybe you believe that I should back up my statements more, but that does not mean that I agree or that I am going to back them up any more than I already decide within my artistic and posting discretion.
and is largely non controversial,
This assertion I _did_ call out. As it is self-evidently controversial to any sentinent being.
Yeah, we disagree. So what?
and I assert that so far there has been inadequate facts, logic or support to push XT/Classic or any of the other blocksize limit raising changes forward,
You can assert such, but it would be a false assertion. But that is another conversation for another day.
Again, we disagree, and why does it matter?
therefore those proposals are largely dead at the moment,
You can assert such, but it would be a false assertion.
Fun fact: it ain't over until it is over. And it won't be over until The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is activated. Which can't happen until it is activated. Which in turn cannot happen until it is adopted by the majority. Which cannot happen until individual operators start running it. Which cannot happen until it is released. Which cannot happen until it passes release gate review. Which cannot happen (we would hope) until it is thoroughly tested. Which cannot happen until that release candidate is fully coded and compiled. Which, if I am up to date, has not yet happened. And no amount of JJG bluster will push SegWit over the finish line.
To some extent I am making snapshot observations to describe the present, and surely I have already conceded several times that blocksize limit issues can still come up, but so what, they are currently largely discredited as being more FUCD spreading than reality, and some of this realization is demonstrated by bitcoin's price passing above $300 and then later $500 when on both occasions, a multitude of XT/Classic FUCD spreaders were proclaiming the end of bitcoin and the end of BTC price rises unless blocksize limits are increased... despite these FUCD spreading proclamations bitcoin is becoming stronger, more robust and prices are continue to resist going below $500 and $300 respectively, which largely r3ckt those blocksize limit FUCD spreading positions, and there is a thread on this R3ckt status, too.. hahahahahaha
Sure the argument is going to keep coming back because it is a common theme with anything like this, but doesn't really mean anything regarding any emergency status in bitcoin or any actual need to raise the blocksize limit at this time, even if the blocksize limit may get raised in 6 months or maybe in 6 years, I don't really have enough technical knowledge or even predictive powers to know exactly how this blocksize limit raising matter is going to play out and when a limit increase will go into effect, if ever, but currently, the XT/Classic arguments are largely discredited by a large majority of the bitcoin space and folks that matter in the direction of the debate.
Whenever new facts develop, each of us picks the facts that support our view and emphasize those facts, and neither one of us either wants to engage in additional research or to provide additional explanation for our positions,
Which is why I merely challenged your false 'assertions of fact', rather than the more encompassing issue of the relative merit of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset vs a simple maxblocksize bump at this point in time. No research required, because the facts in evidence on the points I am challenging are incontrovertible.
Good for you, and we still disagree, and why does it matter?
