OK, so what I get from this is that he's a goon either way, and really shouldn't be spouting off without being prepared to answer the questions arising from his claims, but he raises some himself that I'm not finding good answers for:
1- Is it true that raising the blocksize limit is bad, and more specifically, in the way that Maxwell says it is?
[EDIT] Partially answered, see below.1a - By the way, why the holy-ever-lovin is Maxwell even deving for BTC if he "
proved bitcoin impossible"?
2- Are dissenting opinions really being wholesale censored by those who side with Bitcoin Core over those who disagree? Ignoring that which you don't feel like answering is one thing, attempting to answer regardless if the questioner takes it is better, actively killing the conversation with censorship is just... really bad.
3- Any clue as to who systematically DDOS'd XT nodes? If it were banks or governments, I'd think they would go after Core as well. Excuse me for reading things plainly, but it seems like a clear-cut case of killing the competition. Please prove me wrong.
Also, this should improve the temperature of the conversation around scaling and relevant to question #1.
https://medium.com/@...790f755df#.inxhnxuigTo Maxwell's (and other devs) credit, there IS a commitment to incremental capacity increases that has been in place since Dec 7, 2015:
https://bitcoin.org/...e/capacity-increasesFWIW, I have read through a few of the commit logs on Bitcoin Core's Github, and for all the criticism that Mike Hearn heaps on Greg Maxwell, he doesn't seem to be JUST an engineer/coder; he actively thinks about how people and developers are going to actually use/abuse the systems as they get implemented. Such as:
https://github.com/b...in/bitcoin/pull/2738Also, the discussion here is better than the actual post:
https://www.reddit.c..._this_point_in_time/IMO, commenters are right in saying that the
prime directive of Bitcoin is not as a drop-in replacement for the economic exchange as we know it today (though it may become a large part of it in the foreseeable future), but a system
outside/alongside of it, with the primary aims being anonymity and security in financial transactions between people. I agree with Mike Hearn on one point:
When misinformed investors lose money, government attention frequently follows.
if only to say that
in that context, people who use Bitcoin as an
investment probably shouldn't be. Yes, I understand the ups and downs of Bitcoin value can be played just like the stock market or other investment venture, and many people have. Some have done well and others have lost their shirts. So far, it seems most of the players involved understand the risks of doing such business with a new system outside of authoritative oversight, but I sincerely believe that doing such should be actively discouraged, as it only takes one idiot with less sense than the amount of money they lost for Bitcoin to come under very unwanted scrutiny. So far it's been fortunate; most of those buying in seem to be in it for the technical and socio-economic merits (even 'investors'), not for any notion of convenience or stability. But I wonder if a "tipping point" may come before it is fully mature; where enough clueless users join up expecting it to be some magically 'better' transaction system with no notion of how the thing actually works, then complain when the value dips.
Of course, IMHO, YMMV, 2c, etc...
