It seems that r/bitcoin has been transformed in 24 hours with theymos now having initiated a policy of seemingly permabans rather than temporary bans as used to be the case.
As such, at least for myself, I am now lucky to not have the temptation to visit r/bitcoin any longer as I can not comment there. So I guess at least I myself will now try to give r/btc and/or r/bitcoinxt a real shot and see if a new space can be created.
I guess I was naive to think that it did not have to come to this. These are some comments from gmaxwell back in 2013:
"and if that [1mb] protocol rule didn't exist? I would have never become convinced that Bitcoin could survive"
"The 1MB limit is not soft. I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that it was temporary from the start— and absent it I would have not spent a dollar of my time on Bitcoin"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.0;all
He is further on record stating that he proved a decentralised system like bitcoin was impossible. It seems that he became convinced of the actual proof that it is possible, and thus disproof of his proof of a negative, because and only because it had a 1mb limit, that is only if bitcoin can be kept tiny to such extent that almost no one uses it in the grand scheme of things.
I think that under that belief he probably formed blockstream with Adam to provide offchain/non proof of work, and therefore either not decentralised, trustless or secure, "solutions". The problem is that, regardless of whether he honestly holds that belief or otherwise, the practical effect is the creation of a bottleneck from which he stands to make millions if not billions at our expense.
So I suppose I should have seen that it could not be otherwise but with a fight.
I suppose Gavin would have foreseen this too, hence his choice of stepping down as a lead developer. I suppose he perhaps did not wish to force his decision, but create a competing client so that the supermajority can for themselves decide by action and therefore their aggregate numbers conclude this ever running debate. It is on principle the right decision, but whether it is the most effective choice I guess we will have to see with how this debate concludes next month. And I very much hope it does conclude in December as this can not continue any longer with the price seemingly inhibited by the transaction limit which is now fully consumed.
@Justus Ranvier thank's for the summary provided at r/btc which gave me the opportunity to go over some of the old comments and gain a clearer picture. It may perhaps be beneficial for someone to create a summary of the events from summer this year to have it all in one place for reference for newbs.
I wanted to say in regards to whether a government or some outside entity could be pitting the sides against each other. If that was the case, it may have started in 2013 with the propaganda video by Peter Todd, so it is possible, but anything is possible. Without any evidence I think it is best to judge the arguments being made as once one starts outright speculating, irrationality prevails.
It is easy for example to say, like Adam Back did, that all those who disagree with him are bots, or shills, thus dismissing their arguments through emotional dehumanisation. I'd rather look at the arguments themself and think that gmaxwell is fundamentally wrong with his belief that bitcoin can only operate because of 1mb and it seems to me that the fact he has now doubled down on that belief by forming his own company means that he is unlikely to change his mind. As such, we have no choice, but to route around the stupidity, mistaken belief or even intentional bottlenecking (whichever it is) of one man who thinks that he can prove a negative and that satoshi is/was wrong.
