Yeah, it's different, but it's hard to dumb down this conflict for the idiot masses without losing some of the essential elements. It doesn't mean it's an intentionally misleading analogy.
If not intentionally misleading its is downright stupid when a perfectly good analogy is available . Gavin and Brian spouting that nonsense should know better and its disturbing to hear it from them.
To be clear ... this is a far better analogy--
Different browsers = Bitcoin Core, Bitcore, libbitcoin , ect....
Different protocols = TCP/IP and those that suggest we make some changes to make a new internet where existing browsers suddenly become incompatible with it.
Notice how standards that break the functionality of old browsers are rarely , if ever introduced on the internet. I can still run "mosaic-ck" and lynx browser on my linux computer with no problem and while I am unable to see or use all that fancy javascript/css/flash/ect I can use TCP/IP just fine as originally intended and surf the web, send emails, and read text. The internet was built with stacks and layers of technology to insure backward compatibility and a HF is the exact opposite of this. So no, it isn't just an imperfect analogy but one that is extremely misleading.
We want an armored truck, not a safe on castor wheels pulled by a horse.
We are building a tank with hardened steal, exploding anti- tank missile panels, advanced engine and suspension components for maneuverability, and a more efficient engine to carry a larger capacity and more ammo...
You simply want to double the weight of the tank and throw a bigger cc diesel engine in her that guzzles more fuel.
Perhaps I'm making my opponent's argument for them, but are you familiar with Microsoft's "embrace and extend" strategy to kill off or neuter competing technology?
Gavin is simply putting names on the ballot. He knows this is an election and only one side will win. Perhaps he thought that was obvious.
There is a reason we don't use armored tanks to transport money. There is a reason why soldiers don't have body armor that weighs 300 pounds and can stop missiles. There is such a thing as too much security.
$8 worth of security for each and every transaction is too much security for now. Maybe at some point in the future, we'll need that, but we'll never get to that point without the growth than can only come from cheap transactions.
This "field of dreams" business model of smallblockers is baffling. You don't run a small bank like that, getting a huge vault and then opening for deposits. You get a small vault and you upgrade when you have too many deposits to hold in the small one.
People are not going to pay for security they don't need, particularly when it is provided by Chinese security guards nervously wondering if they are going to get a phone call from the Commies suggesting they take the day off.
