>Apparently you have fallen into the trap of your own constructed narrative.
except that is exactly what
@jtoomim said.
>Both BU and ABC clients allow the user to set the maximum blocksize themselves.
stop being coy. there been plenty of discussion from BCH devs about how the protocol isn't ready or there isn't demand for big blocks as justification for keeping a limit. they actually believe they're preventing a poison block.
>I don't have anything in particular against BSV
that's pretty hilarious when you try to associate CSW with control over bsv every chance you get.
>backing the claim that there would be "No split".
that was just an error of judgment not held by all. there were plenty of people from the BCH side who also thought there would be only one survivor. so what?
>your cognitive dissonance exceeds the threshold where you can objectively assess what constitutes manipulation.
not at all. my game theoretic strategy is very simple and easy to understand. support the protocol rules you favor as they exist today (and ignore those that give false promises for tomorrow) that removes any judgment of the politically motivated devs involved. if you believe that Bitcoin is open source, which I do, a community can always hard fork away from rogue devs that violate the principles of a free sound money.
>Have you drunk from Adam Back's propaganda slideshow koolaid?
nice deflection. why don't you directly address the question?
