rich1.0npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7https://nostr.ae/npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29 📝 Original message:On Saturday, 18 March 2017 16:23:16 CEST Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev wrote: > As everyone in the Bitcoin space knows, there is a massive scaling debate > going on. One side wants to increase the block size via segwit, while the > other side wants to increase via hard fork. I have strong opinions on the > topic but I won’t discuss them here. The point of the matter is we are > seeing the politicization of protocol level changes. I agree with your assessment, the sides are political and picking sides makes people a target. For that reason I know that many companies are not picking sides, we’ve seen some bad stuff happen to companies that did. I’m not convnced it makes sense to use anonymous, but provable, identities is the way to solve this. Though. I also don’t believe people are rejecting proposals purely based on the name. What I see is that pratically all proposals are ignored for the time being becaues we can’t make any changes anyway until we have made a protocol upgrade and came out stronger. I do agree that bips are seen politically, but not based on the person that suggests them, but more based on the content being useful for their political side. I am not entirely against pseudonymous submissions, but in that case I think it should be carried by a well known member of the Bitcoin community. This raises the bar somewhat to a point where you have to convince someone that is already publicly known to propose it with you. -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel