{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-27\n📝 Original message:\u003e The ugly thing is I think everyone in this process recognises the\n\u003e meta-consensus nature of the debate already. Notice how Gavin Andresen's\n\u003e initial blocksize posts were in the form of a non-technical blog, making\n\u003e non-technical arguments to the public - not the Core dev team - in ways\n\u003e not conducive to open response.  A rather annoying example is Jeff\n\u003e Garzik's recent efforts: a fundementally broken troll pull-req raising\n\u003e the blocksize to 2MB that simply can't be merged for reasons unrelated\n\u003e to the blocksize, followed by very public and loud efforts to spin a\n\u003e non-issue - closing a pull-req that had no real impact on blockchain\n\u003e capacity - into a broader reddit furor over a \"changed\" policy on\n\u003e scaling. As a PR effort to the public this was fairly effective: framing\n\u003e the Core dev team's actions as a change and raising the blocksize as a\n\u003e default action puts the team on the defensive. As a way of building\n\u003e consensus among the Core dev team, Garzik's actions are very\n\u003e counterproductive.\n\nYou are correct.  It is also counterproductive to take cheap shots at \nvendors in order to garner consulting revenue.  Measuring risk in a \nsystematic way against known metrics is the way to go.  Tweeting, \nblogging, and drama are generally counterproductive.\n\nWhen the issue is raised most of the developers shun the idea so until \nsome of the developers become mature and experienced you will be left \nwith all this teenager nonsense where everybody calls each other \n\"trolls\" on Reddit instead of engaging in real risk analysis.\n\nRuss"}