It doesn't change the fact that the core devs have known about this issue for years and can't even come to an agreement on the direction much less the implementation of the scalability issue. Some are even arguing that we don't need to scale bitcoin at all because we can work around the limit.
Consensus only works until it doesn't. Then leadership is needed. I'm as anti-government as it gets, but this conspiracy crap is getting ridiculous. It's trivial to flip the switch that allows TOR routing, so individual nodes can turn it on or off depending on their security concerns.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, y'all are aggravating. I understand exactly why Gavin and Hearn released XT.
maybe Maggie Thatcher was right when she said "Consensus is the abdication of leadership."
You know I thought about this a lot today and had quite some reflections about it on twitter.
The leadership you refer to, it reminds me of Hayek. Here is what he had to say on the matter:
Quote
We must here return for a moment to the position which precedes the suppression of democratic processes and the creation of a totalitarian regime.
In this stage it is the general demand for quick and determined central government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic processes which make action for action's sake the goal.
It is then the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough to "get things done" who exercises the greatest appeal.
"Strong" in this sense means not merely a numerical majority - it is the ineffectiveness of parliamentary procedure with which people are dissatisfied. What they will seek is somebody with such solid support as to inspire confidence that he can carry out whatever he wants.
In this stage it is the general demand for quick and determined central government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic processes which make action for action's sake the goal.
It is then the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough to "get things done" who exercises the greatest appeal.
"Strong" in this sense means not merely a numerical majority - it is the ineffectiveness of parliamentary procedure with which people are dissatisfied. What they will seek is somebody with such solid support as to inspire confidence that he can carry out whatever he wants.
Are we forgetting history and just about to repeat it? I sure hope not.
You get Austrian cred for quoting Hayek, but nobody is using, threatening or advocating physical force be used or initiated. Leading is not the same as ruling.
I don't believe the "Final Solution" was included in the National Socialist party pamphlet either
Don't you think that's just a touch hyperbolic? Godwin's Rule is already in play?
