PierreRochard

> There were many developers quite interested in larger block size for many years

Yet, they weren't around when it came time to make it happen.

> Segwit2x had over 90% of the hashpower of the bitcoin world voting for it

Yet, it had a deeply flawed software development process.

> it is still the best measure of consensus and support the network has

Yet the miners stated that they would only mine the fork for 12 hours, do you know why? Because they would have been mining at a (relative) loss. Really undermines this measure of consensus. Maybe the best measure is the market price of the coin.

> I think that the survival and modest success of Bitcoin Cash eroded the initial overwhelming support for Segwit2X.

Basically, Bitcoin Cash is what Segwit2x should've been: an honest, replay-protected coin for people who think a money's value comes from its base layer payment system's transactions per second.

That seems to imply that there are no grey or black markets for currencies. This is contrary to what has been observed in history and in some countries today.

Wow, so this really was a catastrophic failure on multiple levels. Lotta of self-reflection for some in Paris this weekend!

Shouldn't this be a government expense, and not a campaign expense? Do candidates pay for their own physical security?

Wow! This is interesting. I thought the "WMDs in Iraq" was fake news, turns out the "no WMDs in Iraq" is fake news! So much fake news, hard to sort everything out.

And then there's everything in between. That's where the actual debate is. Was "WMDs in Iraq!" fake news in 2002, 2003, or 2004?

TIL! I just saw "Laurelai is an independent journalist"

Thank you for the educational write up! Bitcoin literacy is sorely lacking among journalists, and yet they often forget to contact experts such as yourself...

I could not disagree more. We should adapt to climate change as it happens.

Besides, all of the resources we pour into forcing the climate to not change (which would be unprecedented!) are all for naught when that asteroid hits.

No reason it couldn't be a mix of both.

Why? You don't think managing infrastructure composed of open source components is providing a valuable service?

That's a trade-off. Is the cost of learning and context switching between languages/frameworks less than the benefit of using a tool that is X% more appropriate?