Thanks for replying jonny boy, you are very skilled at misunderstanding things in your favor, it's a privilege to behold. Although, and I'm serious here, the way you type makes me worried you might be going a bit manic, please take care of yourself.





For your first section of misunderstanding, you list some alternatives to your consensus. These alternatives seem fine, but Core is unwilling to do them despite pressure to do so, this is a reason to ditch them and fork away, orphaning their hard work if you will. Remember this hard fork is more about getting away from toxic people,working with these people won't solve this problem, and it's a very big one that needs addressing. You recognize that they are villains, you assume they will act like it post fork for god sakes. Is your point that we should abandon Core later?



Second section, you conveniently crop my post in a way that favors you. Core has been hostile to individuals for a long time, Gavin spoke out about how these people at Core/blockstream are toxic, high-iq, people who don't get along well with others. If you have ever heard Greg talk, it's clear he has ego problems. It's about people exerting inappropriate control over bitcoin, and removing those people from power. You're also rehashing the tired 'locks in 25% of opposition' argument, which I replied to long ago but you never replied back, maybe you'll remember to now?



Third section, this one takes the cake. Core supports on chain scaling, as long as it`s 100% what they want, and 0% what they don't, they need both to act. You`re ignoring the idea of a fork as a way to remove those individuals from power, to show them that bitcoin isn`t their academic conceptual playground, but an open source project that exists in the real world. Their roadmap, blatantly focuses effort on side chain innovation at the expense of on-chain innovation (they only have so many developers after all). it`s clear that this is their goal, which is fine, but it`s fair to notice that it`s not a commitment to on-chain scaling.



In my experience, promises made by a young company about time horizons beyond 6 months or so are meaningless. What are they doing now to address these concerns? Well they have Greg-O arguing on reddit that he's right, and are making promises to miners about fees given through software that doesn't exist and will take decades to come to fruition, I can't believe how gullible the miners are, and how stupid Core thinks everyone else is. It's clear the people behind core need to go, they're brilliant, but incompetent.





It is my personal opinion, that the people behind core are actually acting in good faith, they're just huge nerds. In academia it's normal to cater to people with big brains, but who are otherwise driven by their ego only. It's kind of a requirement to make great discoveries, an unfortunate paradox. Back and Maxwell are the epitome of this, they believe themselves to be privileged and expect everyone else to think so too. When people disagree with them, they throw hissy fits as their privilege is challenged. It happens all the damn time with genius types, and it's happening here, Maxwell and Back look, to me, like spoiled children who need to get their way to be productive. I'll bet against their initiatives every time.





I want to issue a challenge to you jonny-boy-o-boy, if someone says something you agree with, but posts it as an argument against you/core, just let it go. Are you in control of your ego? I'm not sure, let's find out.