Someone asked an interesting question and I suppose this will probably be one line of attack from the small blockers, should BU have a setting of setting the block reward?
My simple answer was that there was no support for any change to the block reward so that was a non starter.
Here's how I see it. Obviously we don't need to waste time and effort (risk introducing bugs, clutter the interface, etc.) lowering the "convenience barrier" on changes for which there's no interest, e.g., making it easier for a user to define their own reward schedule. (Anyone who thinks that coding up such a client is a good use of their time is of course free to do so.) But I also don't think we have any obligation to devote scarce time and resources lowering the convenience barrier on changes that we don't personally think are in Bitcoin's interest
even if there is a non-trivial demand for those features. (Note that doesn't mean that it might not make sense to do so as part of a calculated effort to attract greater market share.) But my key point is that any charge of hypocrisy on that front, or suggestion that if we don't make some particular feature a configurable option we're somehow "just as bad as Core" is
very misplaced. Look, the Core devs are obviously attempting to take Bitcoin in a direction that most of us strongly disagree with. And I think their apparent belief that they'll be successful in that endeavor in the face of strong opposition from Bitcoin stakeholders suggests a great deal of hubris on their part. But the Core devs are not the problem. (In fact, if you *really* believe in that whole "anti-fragility" thing, they may actually be doing Bitcoin a favor by helping to catalyze the decentralization of Bitcoin's development.) But no, the real problem is the users who haven't yet fully grokked what Bitcoin is all about and don't
really understand that when we say "no one is in charge of Bitcoin," what we mean is "no one is in charge of Bitcoin." I know it's a cliche, but I can't help but be reminded of this cartoon.
Note that in this metaphor the people crowded around the guy with the podium (obviously representing Core) don't all support Core's chosen direction. In fact, we can imagine that many of those signs say "Raise the Block Size Limit Now!" But those people are still part of the problem by failing to recognize that we don't need Core's permission to raise the block size. They're the people fretting on Reddit that "Core is killing Bitcoin" and threatening to sell all their bitcoins for alts. The guy walking away? He's the guy running (or coding up) an alternative implementation like Bitcoin Unlimited. That's what we need more of.
