Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19275. (Read 26606954 times)

Core is the status quo and challengers to the status quo have neither met their burden of presentation nor their burden of persuasion in order to successfully change the status quo.  That lack of success does not mean that they will not be successful in the future to make various changes to bitcoin.... If you want to call that democratic, then sure, it could be some form of democracy to attempt to persuade and to present evidence sufficient to persuade a change.. or even to bring computing power or some other leveraged asset (such as public opinion or bitcoin user opinion), and some assets carry more bargaining power than others.  At this point, the most bargaining power seems to be with the miners and the software developers, and there seem to be various factors influencing them.... that causes the directed changes, including seg wit and whatever is going to come thereafter.

I was under the impression core would bump limit eventually.
I was hoping Todd  would confirm that, he didn't, if anything i feel he never wants to touch it, and wants LN to be the solution, that seems to be his end game. and he's willing to use FUD to get people agreeing with him,  classic isn't acting with any more class, but thats no excuse to sink to their level.

I don't think we need 2MB NOW or everything is going to fall apart, but it has to be in the cards, or everything will eventually fall apart. thats my feeling, cheep TX is absolutely necessary for the network to keep growing, thats my view.

That's the great thing about soft forks, they can be very contentious™... but rammed through all the same.

If we can't hard fork while a minority disagrees, we will never hard fork again = exactly what they want. Any change desired by the politburo can be soft forked in with enough hacking creativity.

Core hasn't accepted that yet. When and if they do, it's off to the races, but not before then.  You need to understand their objection. What if we upgrade to 2MB forks and nothing bad happens? It means that we could upgrade to 4 or 8 or 20. Then the Lightning Network time frame to even be needed or viable gets pushed back possibly indefinitely, and Blockstream gets no new VC money. 

They think this is is a fight for survival for them. They will go down if they lose and we don't yet know if they are willing to take us all down with them by resisting the majority and crashing the market. That's the 65 million dollar question. Will Core remain the reference client and bankrupt their own company or will they hold us all hostage and force us to fight it out with the inevitable market crash that would bring? 

I believe people usually do what's in their own perceived best interest. Core is trying to find out how badly the miners want that 2mb fork.  Is 2MB a request or a demand? They will not honer a request. They will honor a demand if they think it is genuine. The miners may not make one. Core still hopes they can politely refuse the miners without consequence. They may be right, but if they are, Classic nodes will multiply and the market will crash. 

We have recently seen a >$50 rise in price in the middle of a hotly contested election. This is insanity.  The buyers thought that the bigblockers had Core cornered.  They do, but have you ever seen a cornered animal just give up? What would the VC backers of Blockstream think of that? If you think that core cares more about what we think than them, you're dreaming. 

The sad think is that Core doesn't even have a problem. Larger blocks will grow the network faster and actually hasten the need for LN, but they're too stupid to understand that.

O.k.  If we are going to give some kind of meaningful weight to the words of Todd, then even listening to him in the LTB interview, you can also hear him saying that any kind of Hardfork and disagreement is a bad idea to attempt to hardfork with even a few percentage in the minority.

In that regard, even if he is talking about contentiousness in terms of increasing the blocksize limits, he really seems to be asserting the dangers of a hard fork and having people who oppose the hardfork working on the other side of such a hardfork.

So in that regard, even if Todd may be a bit less than artful in the way that he made his claims, he is voicing opposition to a majority forcing some kind of outcome on a minority (thus he is saying something like: "hardforks are dangerous no matter what and we should go through considerable efforts to avoid hardforks, if possible")

Smallblockers want to maintain node decentralization by centralizing code development.