The proposal grants to each side that which it desires most, and grants to both a path forward.
Nonsense. In life you can have people who are irreconcilably opposed to each other. Between a man and a woman, this can end in divorce. The New York Agreement companies must either accept Bitcoin or break off on to their own alt-coin. Bitcoin will not tolerate this emotional, Nuance Doctrine nonsense.
By enabling social unification, SegWit2MB has a greater chance of actual activation, and importantly, of preventing further schism and infighting.
There is no SegWit2MB. SegWit and 2MB are two separate things, and they don’t rely on each other at all. Now that SegWit has activated, and the price is sky-rocketing, no one in their right mind will risk a hard fork for 2X, especially now that fees are back to normal because the network attackers (who are very probably to be found amongst the members of the New York Agreement). The NYA is dead in the water, and quite rightly so, since it was negotiated in secret, Is not technically necessary and will damage Bitcoin’s structure.
Everyone knows this now, and no one will go along with 2X. Pieces like this make the decision much easier. Note too, how comments are not allowed on this post, as if that will stop people talking about it.
the great hall we share
These people want to be the men at the doors to this great hall, where you will have to pay to get in, wear the right clothes, look right and believe exactly what they believe.
We should not let this project linger in its current state. SegWit2MB is the first reasonable compromise
Compromise with evil is not reasonable. It is bad. It is to be avoided. Everyone woke up to this; this is why SegWit was activated and its why 2X will be rejected. Bitcoin’s protectors are not stupid, and cannot be persuaded by fallacies and infantile emotionalism.
and its community of souls could rest easier, waking refreshed tomorrow to focus again on our real task at hand: changing the global financial system from its very foundation.
Changing into WHAT, is the question. 2X means a centralized, gate kept Bitcoin that is indistinguishable from Stripe or PayPal. People who understand Bitcoin know that that is an undesirable outcome, and will not allow it to come to pass.
It brings us a Bitcoin superior both socially and technically than what we have today.
Bitcoin is not a social network, and saying it can be made “socially superior” is nonsense. Bitcoin does not and cannot care about the thinking of its users. The entire premiss of this piece is fundamentally flawed. Thankfully everyone can see through it and will not be persuaded by its bad arguments.
From where Bitcoin stands and the risk it faces, a good technical solution which can heal socially, is easily superior to a perfect technical solution which further inflames the community
Bitcoin doesn’t stand anywhere. Anyone who would reject a perfect technical solution that will inevitably change the world, for a worse one just to make an imaginary community, “Feel good” is insane.
Bitcoin’s purpose is fulfilled by technical superiority, not by choosing technical inferiority. That this has to be explained at all is incredible. This is absolutely identical to Luddism. Looms must be destroyed because they put weavers out of work. That is what Voorhees is advocating here.
Any alternative, which even may be superior technically, while not resolving anything socially, must be said to be in fact inferior, on proper accounting
This is absolutely astonishing and ridiculous. By this logic, PayPal is superior to Bitcoin, if the people using it are more friendly to each other. This thinking is absolutely contrary to reality, and so wrong it beggars belief. It also explains why they are wiling to turn Bitcoin into PayPal 2.0. They are not at all aligned with Bitcoin’s purpose, and never understood it at all. This is manifestly clear.
In their inverted reality, a bad result is preferable to a good result if “the community” is unified by the bad result. This is what we would expect out of the USSR or North Korea, not from someone who makes a claim to being a Libertarian or a rational man.
This thinking is closely related to the Broken Window Fallacy; breaking windows is a good thing because it makes work for people. Thankfully, these people will not be allowed to taint Bitcoin with this utter insanity.
And I’d like to make the case that it should be considered…
If you’re going to make the case for a technical solution, all your agruments should be technical only and not emotional. In order to argue for Big Blocks successfully, you must show that increasing the block size parameter has no harmful side effects on Bitcoin, and does not change its dynamics or incentives. If you can’t make this argument on a technical basis, then you have no argument to make.
People’s feelings are not relevant, neither is some nebulous idea of “community”. This is a technical problem of math only, and the number one concern is preserving Bitcoin’s essential offer; a network that cannot be stopped, and which allows entry to anyone with only a small investment in equipment.
Big Blocks break this, and therefore it should be rejected, and in fact it has been rejected.