It's important that a distributed ledger (blockchain) network not get spammed / be vulnerable to wasteful, spammy, or malicious transactions/requests. So, this argument, in favor of small blocks, is very legitimate and must be considered.
It's also important that a distributed ledger (blockchain) network be allowed to grow in userbase, feature set, adapt to new functionalities and processing capabilities, to match the ever-evolving needs and demand from a diverse userbase, particularly in the midst of the rapidly changing technological landscape of modern societies. So, this argument, in favor of larger blocks, is also very legitimate and must be considered.
..But implementing solutions that address either, or ideally, somehow, both of of these main issues, doesn't solve bitcoin's ACTUAL biggest problem as the premier [theoretically] decentralized payment system & store of value we need it for.[...][...]
What matters is, NO POOL should be allowed more than ~6-17% of total hashing power, and advanced technical stopgaps to prevent and/or cripple this from happening should be implemented in at the protocol level if need be, even if that concedes a certain unfortunate 'central planning' cost for the greater good of safeguarding Decentralized Trustlessness against any attempts by agents into asserting more than the maximum allowed % control of the network.A cryptocurrency's most core value proposition - trustlessness - cannot exist if its network is centralized!!!Your logic and use of large fonts in attempt to further your point makes me think you're 16?
No - ironically, it's to counter the prevalent teenager crowds' '16 yo' lack of attention span and general apathy, that I try to use varied font sizes, wanna make sure I get them page views y'know, my time not wasted, and what not ;3
Thankfully the badger doesn't care.
Your honey badger doing good af atm : Was propped up & overbought for too long, at last it's
shown itself in the price action, much to the teary dismay of degenerate bulltards galore <3
-----------------------------------
[...]
A cryptocurrency's most core value proposition - trustlessness - cannot exist if its network is centralized!!!
How would the protocol distinguish two pools from a single pool masquerading as multiple pools (one pool split up into several pools, all still controlled by one guy)?
^Perfect question - One of the main issues facing this proposal which would have to be debated and solved on technical & philosophical/ideological merits. Not gonna pretend I have all the answers, in a heartbeat ;p
-----------------------------------
..Vote to change Core to blacklist them (or use any similar method, I don't know - I'm not a programmer ;3)
That is trivial to program. However, if you use
any rule to select the "right" blockchain other than "the one that has the majority of the hashpower", including blacklisting some miners, you are no longe using the bitcoin protocol. What you are using is a centralized payment system -- an incredibly stupid and inefficient one.
You are right. Of course..I should have known that ;/
So, what if millions of users/miners do this vote? I know this wouldn't be practical in our current world - just theorizing about the concept itself.
They wouldn't get blacklisted - it's more the protocol would dynamically detect any given pool is amassing too much hashpower, wallet users &/or miners that are reasonably detected to not be likely to be affiliated w/ this pool, get to do a 'consensus check trigger' that, if successful, starts limiting this pool to a lower % so it's held in check? The minute users stop being in general majority agreement about it - it stops limiting the pool in question, so it's both non-draconian and consensus-based + decentralized-control-mechanism?
-----------------------------------
[...]
What matters is, NO POOL should be allowed more than ~6-17% of total hashing power, and advanced technical stopgaps to prevent and/or cripple this from happening should be implemented in at the protocol level if need be, even if that concedes a certain unfortunate 'central planning' cost for the greater good of safeguarding Decentralized Trustlessness against any attempts by agents into asserting more than the maximum allowed % control of the network.
A cryptocurrency's most core value proposition - trustlessness - cannot exist if its network is centralized!!!
How would the protocol distinguish two pools from a single pool masquerading as multiple pools (one pool split up into several pools, all still controlled by one guy)?
You can't, so what we need is a open policy, no pool can exceed 5%. Then we need policemen to enforce that policy, how, DDOS attacks. Wild west baby, comply or get killed.
Such an activist, loving it xD *Picturing him w/ cowboy hat & silver-star-heeled leather boots <3*
No matter, "socioeconomic consensus" doesn't need miners... amirite?
. I do not mind "inner fights", or that it turned out to the public that we have those. In my POW, the whole point of a decentralized system, is that there can BE differing views! Am not here to judge, it may seems he hurted BTC for now, but we do not know the future, this might forced something which will be beneficial in the long run - if nothing else, cheap coins for me :-D. I focus on the 25% valid concern; those are still problems to be sold! 
....... 
