I think that you are spot on Jonald.

Some people do not understand yet that it is not the case of choosing one implementation over another to rule over us. But that it is a case of having multiple implementations for us to freely choose from, this is how the governance of Bitcoin should work. The three most popular alternative implementations are all compatible with each other after all, only Core is incompatible with a blocksize increase, even if the economic and mining majority wants a blocksize increase.

I believe in Satoshi Nakamoto.

False dichotomy.

Straw man as usual.

You guys are good propagandists (and shills).

What part of 'you are free to fork off' do you disagree with?

I say you are free to fork off - you reply Blockstream is totalitarian.
I say after a blockchain fork, you end up with an altcoin - you reply no, miners decide what Bitcoin is.
I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc.

And usually you find a small issue with my posts and imply that I'm evil. I don't think non-shills usually do this.

In other words, those shills are themselves evil. Now, a newsflash: there are Core shills too, and I think they're evil.
What is more, since you deliberately ignore shills in your camp, that makes you evil too. Now that I've pointed
this out, I would not be surprised in the least if you were to think that I'm quite evil. And I await your forthcoming
response that will convince me yet more that you're all really evil.

See the pattern?  

Attempting to compile a list of shills is just one of the various examples of shitty debate floating about. It's really hard for people not to get sucked into this, but my advice would be to end that line of inquiry right now. I'm not interested in who may or may not be a shill. Arguments on merit will always rise above those that are pure propaganda.

Thank you for answering this for me. While it might be easier for me to "make a list of shills" for people related to XT/Classic/BU because I'm on the other side of the debate, I would rather not do it for either side. What does anyone get from my (subjective) list of shills for any side? Does this solve the scaleability problem?

Let us not slide in this false argument for there would be no such thing as shills for the BITCOIN camp as XT/BU/Classic and all the crooks within the ecosystem are the one exclusively using proselyte tactics and invading social media to promote their scam.

Bitcoin works. Status Quo is not about some shills.

Core are to be respected for their work, and Blockstream are welcome to innovate (whilst not denaturing bitcoin obviously).

Anyhow, debunking (and insulting, for sometimes it just feels good) the socialist wannabes that spew their constant hate and political nonsense is not shilling but merely a natural response against those vile USGtrolls using Hegelian dialectics and raising the malicious stupidity of the herd, eg.Malpidity to try to instigate some governance coup whilst forking the shit of our sovereignty/money.

It is not a false dichotomy at all, it is not a false choice, it is a case of consistence. We need to choice between these two positions because they are contradictory, both can not be true at the same time.

It is not a straw man argument because I was saying that some people think that adopting another implementation is the same as just choosing a different group of developers to rule over Bitcoin, that is not the case since it is more about distributing this power, not centralising it more or moving the central point of control. This is not a straw man argument since I am responding accurately to what other people have said on this thread.

It is not productive going around calling people shills without evidence. It would be better to focus on the content of peoples arguments instead.

I do not disagree with this notion and I will not carry out a straw man argument by claiming that you have said otherwise. As far back as I remember you have been consistent on this point at least. There have been other people however that claim that we should not be free to fork and or that Bitcoin is not free. These are the types of totalitarian arguments I have been arguing against.

I consider their mentality and actions to be totalitarian, fortunately the rest of the community is starting to see that now.

If you think that the economic and mining majority forking Bitcoin in order to increase the blocksize turns it into an altcoin then that is fine, I will stick to the definition in the whitepaper and say that the longest chain is what defines Bitcoin in this situation. Ultimately I do not even really care which chain gets the original name, it is just semantics. I just do not want to see the Bitcoin I hold and care about to be crippled by arbitrarily restricting its capacity, even if that leads to a split.

Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism.

This brings me back to a very important point. If Bitcoin is what people accept it is, then it follows that if the majority of people want a two megabyte blocksize and we justifiably fork to express this will, then Bitcoin with a two megabyte limit is Bitcoin. This is the contradiction that has been pointed out to you in your position previously, which so far you have still failed to acknowledge.

Another straw man I suppose, I never said this. Genuinely rational people usually do not accuse other people of being shills without evidence. It does not strengthen your argument, it actually weakens it.

That's just some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before he poops a cap in his ass.
Shalom!

^That. "Economic majority" is a misleading bit of jargon, implying that the interests of the miners [always] coincide with the interests of the holders.