This fork is about bigger blocks, right now. Why keep pushing straw man arguments? It's not the last update to the Bitcoin protocol. It's not the final version of the Bitcoin protocol.
There is no straw man here. It's attacking the fundamental rationale behind what is happening.
2 devs saw that BTC should go another way regarding one of its parameters and they forked it. If they can do that, why not do the same for some other parameter, as they see fit?
For the sake of argument I am willing to accept that those are slippery slope arguments, but it's still not what's being proposed. And that seems to be quite common among those who oppose XT.
Poster earlier said "we need faster btc, not 10 minutes BTC".
Andersen and Hearn said "we need bigger btc, not 1mb BTC"
Next thing you know, a guy who doesn't follow protocol, just like Andersen and Hearn did, forks it in favor of 2x - 5x faster transactions and claims all the other guys are cripple coiners for insisting on a time limit that is slow and that can't rival visa. He proclaims that speed is a necessary element for getting wide adoption and that otherwise we'll be favoring payment processors that can take 0-conf transactions - so we really NEED these lower conf. times.
See how good it sounds? But these populist appeals to bigger-better-faster are bullshit.
If you ask anyone whether they want a bitcoin that can transact faster or be able to cope with more transactions, they will all say yes. Why wouldn't they? But there are very good technical reasons why we don't currently have 10mb blocks, or a high block frequency, or zero fees, or or or.
For most people these technical reasons are elusive, and that means that their decision in favor of a "better" bitcoin can be heavily influenced due to all those factors that they ignore.
So let's just leave the actual devs that know how BTC works, and that perform very thorough analyses on how it'll work out if they change key parameters, to decide the next development steps of BTC.
If you dont make these changes, sooner or later better crypto will take btc position and people will leave..you think how smart you are from technical way but totally ignoring economics and market...there so no winning solution, but bigger block size is less evil than cripple bitcoin adoption for me...i hope Bitcoin core will be just one of many alt clients in future and people will be able to vote what is best...exactly as now...Core devs are just angry it is not their way and they behave like small children about it...They lost the total power to make btc their way and it is a GOOD THING, not a bad thing...why should we have centralized development where nobody decides anything in decentralized open source network? They had all the years and time to come with better solution than BIP101...is there any working solution? No...Gavin was the only one who sat to pc and tried robust testing of bigger blocks...LN, sidechains, all just concepts...with their own centralization problems...So i dont vote yet for XT, but i vote for Gavin to lead btc development, not the others...after all, Satoshi gave him the Bitcoin development to lead and he gets my vote...and when i read the arrogant attitude from core devs, even defending Theymos for that censoring fiasco...these people are or will end up acting same or worse than our politics and governments...
