This is a misrepresentation of the event. Not only did Mike & Gavin's proposal not obtain consensus it achieved a majority opposition. We're not talking about an outlier forcing his veto against consensus but a team of diverse developers concluding that their approach was not appropriate and lacked legitimate technical backing.
The success of Bitcoin XT is not relevant to what I was saying, and can you tell me what I am misrepresenting specifically?
It is not intrinsically wrong to fork away from the core development. It is wrong though to go against the technical opinion of a majority of experts in the field.
Can you see the contradiction in what you are saying here? Who decides whom these majority of experts are? Is the majority of the Core development team considered to be the technical majority? Since that would be tantamount to centralization of power. You did understand that I argued that from a technical standpoint they might be correct, however that from a political standpoint they are not. Therefore the technical majority should not be the group that decides or whose perspective should be considered the most important, on this issue the economic majority should and will decide for themselves. Having more options and choices for people so that the market can decide is a good thing and supports freedom and decentralization.
Do you know what the "majority of experts" believed in Germany in 1938? The "majority of experts" are not always correct.
Don't you find it hypocritical that somehow the XT team propose to fork away from core development team and arbitrarily install themselves into the driver seat?
Actually it is not hypocritical, especially since Mike has described himself as the dictator of Bitcoin XT lol. Fortunately however we do not need to trust him or any other developer. Bitcoin is a trust less open source protocol. That is why there can not be a dictator of Bitcoin unless the economic majority places their trust in them, which they would not do, especially the miners since they are incentivized to do what is best for Bitcoin.
I do not think that Core will ever increase the block size unless there is a hard fork initiated by another client. Because there is a fundamental disagreement within the Core development team itself that cannot be resolved. This has led to a stalemate. Since they can effectively veto each other on decisions. Therefore the only way to increase the block size is by hard forking away from the core development team.
The core team has several block increase implementation being worked out as we speak. This is again a disingenuous representation of reality.
Just because there are proposals it does not mean that they will be implemented, and they most certainly have not been implemented now. Right now the only way to increase the blocksize is by using BIP101. Which has not been implemented in Core. Since none of the proposals have been implemented in Core and no definitive plans have been made to implement any block size increase in Core. I can therefore say that I have not represented the reality disingenuously.
It is important to remember that if you run a full node or if you are a miner, you have to vote, you literally can not do these things without casting a vote to either side, therefore it is impossible to be neutral if you either mining or running a full node. Since I do think that the block size limit should be increased, and right now I have to choose between Core or BIP101, I choose BIP101, even if it a choice between the lesser of two evils. This is a case of political realism. In political thought the lesser of two evils is often the pragmatic reality we have to accept in order to even justify the existence of the state, and we should not think that 90% consensus is practical considering how democracies actually and practically function.
Bitcoin is not a democracy. "Political realism"
I seriously almost barfed. You are entertaining very dangerous thoughts gentleman.
Bitcoin is a type of democracy where the economic majority have the most influence. Similarly to how our democracies function today lol. You are correct that these are very dangerous thoughts, but these are the foundations of much political thinking. When faced with only two choices we must choose even if the options are imperfect. Just like government, it is a compromise, a moral dilemma. We cannot just ignore the dilemma, that is why this is a case of "political realism".
This fundamental disagreement lies in that some of the of the Core developers do not want the block size to be increased at all. Because some of the Core developers like Peter Todd believe that the Bitcoin blockchain can not scale efficiently and that therefore we should not try and make it scale directly at all. I would like to point out here that this the nirvana fallacy.
Absolutely wrong once again. This is an outright lie that is either intentional or demonstrate your ignorance of the events unfolding.
I can provide a source:
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion, 39:50.
He clearly argues in this podcast that he thinks we should not increase the block size any time soon and that a "fee market" should develop instead, which according to him would "incentive" other market solutions like lighting network, sidechains and other types of "off chain transactions". Granted he did say that in the long term we should maybe increase the blocksize, however he definitely does think that the blocks should fill up. Therefore it is not incorrect to say that there is a fundamental disagreement within the core development team.
I will stop there because frankly your essay is quite boring, full of fallacies and absent of any insights. It appears you like writing a lot but you should maybe pay more attention and educate yourself a bit more about the dynamics at stake. Also, get your head out of this political/philosophical cloud because it is inferring with your judgment.
You have failed to point out any fallacies. The purpose of philosophy among other reasons is to improve a persons judgment. I think that it is good that philosophy is inferring with my judgment. The definition of infer being to "deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.".
