Sorry for spamming. Once again, this time on a specific quote from you
Craig would have found any other excuse. You think it is possible to appease him because you have chosen not to pay attention to his words.
and
@Peter R
You are impressed by technobabble, a wheelbarrow full of degrees, and lawsuits against open-source bitcoin developers.
It's obvious what you mean with this: Everybody who gives a tiny shit on CSW should leave BU. As there are several members, including Norway and me, who give a lot of shit, I'm worried by this.
To be fair, you make another bullet point which could be seen as directed against ABC:
You believe the quantity of block space actually produced should be managed by a group of experts rather than the free market,*
Since ABC did over and over confirm they want to be the experts who dictate the blocksize - and essentially did this when BSV raised it to 128 MB - the quote could be understand as that people who support ABC or a limited blocksize, like jtoomim, should leave. But there is an astrix:
*I believe the limit — if one exists — should be maintained above the free-market equilibrium block size whenever feasible so as not to distort the free-market dynamics.
Which gives much room for groups of experts to dictate the blocksize, as long as it is above some height.
Anyway ... you are a human with your own opinions, and the best rights to have and voice them. I'm just disappointed that you side with ABC against BSV after ABC developers attacked and smeared BU in public. You give them exactly what they aggressively bully you to give.
What I wanted to talk about was this:
... because you have chosen not to pay attention to his words.
and
I payed attention to CSW since day 1. First I thought, might be a good Satoshi, but more likely a good swindler, with an amazing ability to express big blockers points. Later I become a bit more contrarian - you remember me cheering for cutting ties with nChain, after they collaborated with ABC to shut down op_group - and stayed there for some time, thinking "I made my duty, payed enough attention". Than I payed more attention, and I stopped seeing it so onesided.
So. No: I don't like BSV, because I forgot to pay enough attention to the words of CSW. The opposite is true: I like it because I actually payed attention.
@shilch might be able to tell a lot of stories. For example, he and someone else had a 500+-comment-thread on slack about the original nature of op_return, and how it could interact with other (lost) opcodes. Not that I understood much, but there have been a lot of "wow" and "lightbulb" moments. On several occasions CSW stepped in, made a short comment, which first caused confusion, than enthusiasm, because he hinted on something valuable. At least that's my impression of this thread.
On the same way CSW explained for month, that it is possible to transport files via the mempool by changing the transaction when receiving. It is a very long way to get how it works and which role several elements play (not ready here for my part), but most people agree that it works nicely.
@Peter R there are a lot of similar stories too, if you "pay attention" instead of having reached an opinion which allows you to stop paying attention. Both stories are logically incompatible with the public assessments of CSW's capabilities you made and still made.
One of my basic surviving strategies is that I allow myself to be wrong. I was wrong on the turnout of the "hashwar" and the "economic war" after the fork; I was wrong about the chance of a flippening to BCH, wrong about the success of SegWit2x and much more. I am very often wrong, and if I stop allowing myself to be, I only have the voice between stopping to say something or becoming intellectually dishonest.
