pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @NewNymWhoDis 1 Aug 2022 \ parent \ on: For those who dislike Monero…why? bitcoin
-1) You may not be a "fanboi" but it is clear that you have an agenda.
-2) Nobody owes you a reply, whether they started the conversation or not they are free to leave it.
-7) If it can be hard forked (and has been hard forked) then there is a 'they'. The 'they' definition is fuzzier, but it is something like: Those who support and promote and use the hard fork, vs those who do not.
-9) People have different uses for blocking. You assume the use-case that he is using the block feature for. Is it not similar to personal privacy? It is possible he doesn't want his time involuntarily taken by those on his block list, and it is also possible that he blocks people with dissenting responses. You can make your assumption, but you can't know that your assumption is correct.
Fixed formatting in above comment, thank god for timed edits.
reply
- Yes, that people have access to the truth about tradeoffs and get to choose for themselves, instead of being mislead by people who either don't understand on-chain privacy or are willfully ignoring it for some ulterior motive.
- Of course not! Doesn't change that it's rather poor etiquette to ignore + block someone who over and over tries to engage with you and provides point-by-point rebuttals in as kind a way as possible, and then block literally everyone who disagrees with you in obvious bait posts.
- (Confusing me with this numbering :P ) Yes, the "they" is the entire active community. There is no "those who do not" and has never been AFAIK. When hard-forks perfectly align with the ethos and social consensus set in place from the beginning they just make sense.
- He blocks out of "compassion" apparently. Doesn't change the effects of broadly blocking anyone you disagree with or who doesn't worship your hot takes on Twitter.
reply
The numbering was meant to match to the number I was replying to on your post. Probably more confusing that way.
The only thing I will add is that I think that you are underestimating the effect that number 3/7 (number confusion) has. I don't think that the argument that there has never been 'those who do not' yet is a strong one. You preach that Monero is a good tool for private payments, and you try to promote adoption. Currently I would argue that the people who use Monero are in-the-know and commit time to keeping up with the current state. The wider the adoption comes, the less people with be willing to do that. The less people willing to do that in the future, the harder a non-contentious hard fork will become. There will likely come a time where a hard fork is needed to implement something and there will be less consensus on the decision. This will likely lead to a split.
'
Decisions that are obvious and have a clear line to follow on the 'ethos' are not a good example to throw out there as to why hard-forking is not a problem. There may come a time where the hard-fork hard-decision times comes and it makes your argument stronger and not weaker, but only time will tell.
reply