MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:10:47 +0300
To: "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo@gmail.com>
From: "NxtChg" <nxtchg@hush.com>
In-Reply-To: <64C86292-6671-4729-8A77-63C081797F62@gmail.com>
References: <20150817100918.BD1F343128@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<1439815244.89850.YahooMailBasic@web173102.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
	<20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<64C86292-6671-4729-8A77-63C081797F62@gmail.com> 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20150817151047.36D9943112@smtp.hushmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
Precedence: list

Eric,

>In the entire history of Bitcoin we've never attempted anything even closely resembling a hard fork like what's being proposed here.

These concerns are understandable. What's hard to understand is why he, he and he get to decide what is more risky - hitting the limit or forking for larger blocks?

Many people don't seem to think the upcoming hard fork is such a big risk.

---

And why there's so much fear that your side might lose to XT in a honest battle? Why is it suddenly not "let the best man win", but "we are right, they are enemies of the state, go get them!!!"?

This is the same fear dictators have of honest elections. If you know you can't win in a honest battle, you start rigging the game.

With recent "Satoshi" post even this list is not immune...

----

I don't know if everybody had a chance to appreciate this quote by theymos yet:

"If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users to leave."

(https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/)

This is a quote worthy of Gaddafi. Fortunately, it's hard to be a dictator on the Internet, where you can't shoot people.