I know that it is difficult to understand why democracy is "the worst system of government, excluding all the others". It takes the ability to think socially: "Whatever I can think, do, want, or get, others can think, do, want, or get too".
Libertarians and anarchists are notoriously unable to think that way. So, when they conclude that the choices of a minority should prevail over those of the majority, they always assume implicitly that it will be their minority, not some other minority.
You don't understand us at all, Prof. The Core devs aren't anarchists. It's early adopters like me who are. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists most commonly are Natural Rights advocates and not utilitarians, so you can be forgiven for misunderstanding us, but if you really dive into the philosophy and economics of it, you'll find that most of us are on the other side in this conflict.
Deomocracy, in the sense of one person one vote for control over pooled resources, is inefficient because there is no way to communicate the intensity of one's preferences. That is one objection. The main objection is that we don't believe you can delegate your right to a government if you don't have that right in the first place, so for example, if you don't have the right to take by force from your neighbor because you need his property more than he does, then you don't have that right even if the majority of voters decide that you do.
No, in political and economic issues, we are basically saying it's got to be win-win or no deal. Zero-sum game theory is relevant only in that we seek to reduce as much as possible the cases in which it applies.
In the present conflict, here is how I see it: Miners have every right to run whichever version they choose. Developers have every right to contribute to whatever version of the client they wish. investors and speculators have every right to buy or sell as much as they want. Everyone has a right to run or not run any node they like.
I would like Core/Blockstream to get on board with a blocksize increase, but I don't think that's going to happen unless circumstances change significantly and they may never get on board. That's their right. I will support any proposed scaling solution that looks like it has a reasonable chance of success, but I don't think Core or the miners that support them will change positions without a major loss in market cap. This puts me in a weird position:
If the market stays up or goes higher, I sell. If the market goes lower, I hold, because it means we are more likely to get a scaling solution one way or another. The market is more democratic than democracy. I can vote with my wallet. So can you. So can anybody.
In my opinion, a higher price will attract new users and bring on the very network congestion the transaction fees are supposed to overcome. There will be a period in which low value transactions will diminish due to loss of economic viability and be replaced by higher value transaction, but eventually all growth will plateau and stop.
I don't know if this issue will EVER be resolved, and that will be a tragedy, but this will play out in the market, as it should. Either Bitcoin will scale or another coin that is found to be more useful by the market will. Core has no more power than the market gives them. Miners have no more power than traders/investors/speculators give them. If we reward them for doing something stupid, it's our fault when they do it.
Hey Jorge, I was wondering if you have time and could possibly comment later about the exchange between JToomin and Guy Corem?
It's a long read but it lays out the history post hk scaling convention and recent development of classic.
It then goes on to discuss post classic activation.
Advanced Warning, It's a long read... But super informative and IMHO provides a good understanding of the competing interests and goals...
