{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29\n📝 Original message:On Saturday, 18 March 2017 16:23:16 CEST Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev \nwrote:\n\u003e As everyone in the Bitcoin space knows, there is a massive scaling debate\n\u003e going on. One side wants to increase the block size via segwit, while the\n\u003e other side wants to increase via hard fork. I have strong opinions on the\n\u003e topic but I won’t discuss them here. The point of the matter is we are\n\u003e seeing the politicization of protocol level changes.\n\nI agree with your assessment, the sides are political and picking sides \nmakes people a target.\nFor that reason I know that many companies are not picking sides, we’ve seen \nsome bad stuff happen to companies that did.\n\nI’m not convnced it makes sense to use anonymous, but provable, identities \nis the way to solve this. Though.\n\nI also don’t believe people are rejecting proposals purely based on the \nname. What I see is that pratically all proposals are ignored for the time \nbeing becaues we can’t make any changes anyway until we have made a protocol \nupgrade and came out stronger.\nI do agree that bips are seen politically, but not based on the person that \nsuggests them, but more based on the content being useful for their \npolitical side.\n\nI am not entirely against pseudonymous submissions, but in that case I think \nit should be carried by a well known member of the Bitcoin community.\n\nThis raises the bar somewhat to a point where you have to convince someone \nthat is already publicly known to propose it with you.\n-- \nTom Zander\nBlog: https://zander.github.io\nVlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel"}