Here's a thought experiment.

Gavin chickens out and doesn't release XT. Someone anonymous releases equivalent code on github with nothing changed but 1MB to no limit. He provides irrefutable proof that he's destroyed his own commit privileges. Thus, their are NO core devs to modify code from here to eternity. What happens?

The assumption has always been that we need core maintainers to continuously upgrade Bitcoin. Maybe we don't?

Peter is definitely part of the problem.  so it's not surprising that iCEBlow holds him up as one of his Daddy's.

his problem is that he's had a problem with Gavin going back years on end so his current position on opposing Gavin's ideas are unsurprising.  it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious.   he's a much smarter version of Tim Swanson.

Your problem is that you've had a problem with gmax going back years on end, so your current position opposing all of the core devs' ideas is unsurprising.  It's just all the whoring you do on Bitcointalk and Reddit, that make one suspicious.  You're a much smarter version of Jorge Stolfi.

Peter is part of the reason Bitcoin has a good chance of successfully scaling to 1MB.

What has your African boy fetishism done for Bitcoin?   

Bitcoin was built to function perfectly under load.  Bitcoinwisdom, perhaps less so.   

Temporary subsidy enhancement of block reward is only there to support miners (and seed distribution) while adoption (IE volume, IE load) bootstraps on and off-chain fee markets.


If you lose, I want real Bitcoin.  If you win, expect to be paid in doublespent Gavincoins.   

1MB blocks may become a harmful constraint by this time next year, given some black swan for fiat or rapid deployment of sidechain/Lightning.  But we're are not even on course to begin getting there yet, given the unwelcome distraction of the Gavinista insurgency inciting the get-rich-quick XT mob.  TX fees are still orders of magnitude below their cost in electricity, etc., demonstrating fee pressure insufficient for develop mature markets.


There's also the possibility we do get a technically and politically feasible velvet divorce, in which case we can forget all this nasty controversy about the "best" block size and start a new nasty controversy about which is the "real" Bitcoin.

Won't that be fun?   

i've already gone thru why i disagree strongly with gmax:

1. his handling of the PressCenter.org debacle-he still claims he was right after the fork won.
2. his whining about mining centralization
3. his general bearishness on Bitcoin
4. his views on consensus
5. his formation of Blockstream involving 9 of the top core dev committers with him as CEO.
6. his obstruction of the block size increase.

he's the only one of the core dev i've ever had "problems" with.  the above lists merely differences in ideology anyway.

you really don't care about getting your facts straight heh?

Adam Back is CEO

there are at most 6 Bitcoin core contributors on Blockstream`s team. probably 3 of them would qualify ast "top committers"

IOW, "NO iCEBREAKER, I DON'T SEE THE INCONSISTENCY THERE AND YES, I DO NEED YOU TO DRAW ME A PICTURE."

Fine.   

I'm not asking you to correctly predict the price or even refrain from speculation.  That would be silly.

I'm asking for some logical consistency, or an admission you must make up shit as you go along.  In a way, I suppose we already have implicit admission of the latter...as you simultaneously fault gmax for "general bearishness on Bitcoin" and throw around the term "Cripplecoin."

You think I'd be a good Blockstream shill?  Great, I'll put that on my application!   

Did you just agree to the bet?  I can't tell.  

We'd both deposit 1 BTC to a multisig address (3rd key held by neutral party).  If the chain forks, the winner would automatically have coins spendable on both sides.  

You can't tell because you edited out the part of my post which answered your question:


Does ^that^ help, or do you require pictorial aids like dear old befuddled Doctor Frappuccino?