@adam3us @tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver Long reply, please do not start replying until I say *end*. — I’m always happy to discuss. Problem is that nothing ever comes from it. You only want to talk “ethos”. Facts are simple: Blocksize increase or not. Non mining full nodes have virtually zero benefit. Proven ad nauseum.

@tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver Once we establish the fact that non-mining full nudes are not required, which I have discussed with you for years (and you still fail to recognize), we can talk about the effects you caused and will cause by refusing to increase the blocksize limit.

@tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver Ridiculous transaction fees: - Noone will use Bitcoin as a currency for payments. Those who did, ditched it (Steam, etc). Bitcoin is a P2P electronic cash system (title of whitepaper), not just a atore of value. - People now have to resort to using centralized exchanges.

@tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver - Bitcoin was designed to simply and easily increase the blocksize limit. It was actually 1 line in the code and was absurdly easily changed (compared to Segwit, dont get me started). Satoshi put the limit in place as a temporary fix for a ddos issue (prove me wrong, I was there)

@tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver - You and a couple of co-conspirators wanted the limit to stay in place. From Blockstreams business perspective, that makes total sense. From an end-useds perspective, you screwed everyone. I fought and convinced miners/companies to remove the limit. They agreed. You stopped it.