Core Devs: Communication has improved, thank you. Two more moves, and the civil war may end.

[rogerver]

Over the past week, Core has shown a marked improvement in its communication with the community. Creation of BitcoinCore.org was appropraite. Setting up the official twitter account was smart. Encouraging discussion in bitcoincore.slack.com has been excellent. And most recently, Core's post here was very helpful - well-written and informative.
A sincere thank you to Core for demonstrating improvement in this area. Keep it up.
Upon this momentum, may I now offer the following humble suggestion: with two more moves, Core can end the civil war.
This suggestion is based on discussions with various parties over the past two weeks. Anything less than both is unlikely to settle the issue in any meaningful way. That suggestions are being given to Core, as opposed to Core's opponents, is not an indication that Core is "primarily at fault" or that it's Core's sole responsibility to fix things. Rather, it is because Core has the power and position to effect meaningful change, in my opinion.
Move 1) Core clearly commits to a hard fork block size increase, by adding it to its formal roadmap. The specific plan should probably be the 2-4-8 plan, as proposed initially by Adam Back, and which achieved widespread consensus after the scaling conferences. The time to add it to the roadmap is now, and the time to execute the HF should then, within reason, be up to Core's stewardship. This needn't interfere with, and is certainly not a replacement for, the much beloved SegWit.
Move 2) Core formally, publicly, and clearly denounces the censorship that has plagued community discussion, and should apologize for not having done so earlier. Core is not responsible for the censorship, but stood silently by as it happened, allowing widespread mistrust to grow out of control.
If Core can gather the consensus among its members to take these two steps, and can do so with professionalism, humility, and a sincere desire to move forward and help the community heal, then I believe it will.
This would be a victory for the major factions of this divisive issue. We could then all get back to building. There are so many battles ahead to fight against the real enemy. This one, against each other, needs to end.
And please, above all, civility in these discussions is paramount. To Core - thank you for the work you have done, and continue to do. I think you'll find many allies if you take the above to heart.

Today I saw Erik's post above in /r/Bitcoin and my heart sank. Why would someone who clearly cares so deeply about Bitcoin continue to support such a censored and heavily controlled forum by posting there when he already knows about alternatives like /r/BTC and this forum? I think we should all feel more than a little disappointed by this, and call upon more users to make the switch to platforms that support free speech.

[LiteCoinGuy]

i share his view that the communication has improved from core but i still see a major problem with theymos and the censorship that is going on there.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Over the past week, Core has shown a marked improvement in its communication with the community. Creation of BitcoinCore.org was appropraite. Setting up the official twitter account was smart. Encouraging discussion in bitcoincore.slack.com has been excellent. And most recently, Core's post here was very helpful - well-written and informative.
A sincere thank you to Core for demonstrating improvement in this area. Keep it up.
Upon this momentum, may I now offer the following humble suggestion: with two more moves, Core can end the civil war.
This suggestion is based on discussions with various parties over the past two weeks. Anything less than both is unlikely to settle the issue in any meaningful way. That suggestions are being given to Core, as opposed to Core's opponents, is not an indication that Core is "primarily at fault" or that it's Core's sole responsibility to fix things. Rather, it is because Core has the power and position to effect meaningful change, in my opinion.
Move 1) Core clearly commits to a hard fork block size increase, by adding it to its formal roadmap. The specific plan should probably be the 2-4-8 plan, as proposed initially by Adam Back, and which achieved widespread consensus after the scaling conferences. The time to add it to the roadmap is now, and the time to execute the HF should then, within reason, be up to Core's stewardship. This needn't interfere with, and is certainly not a replacement for, the much beloved SegWit.
Move 2) Core formally, publicly, and clearly denounces the censorship that has plagued community discussion, and should apologize for not having done so earlier. Core is not responsible for the censorship, but stood silently by as it happened, allowing widespread mistrust to grow out of control.
If Core can gather the consensus among its members to take these two steps, and can do so with professionalism, humility, and a sincere desire to move forward and help the community heal, then I believe it will.
This would be a victory for the major factions of this divisive issue. We could then all get back to building. There are so many battles ahead to fight against the real enemy. This one, against each other, needs to end.
And please, above all, civility in these discussions is paramount. To Core - thank you for the work you have done, and continue to do. I think you'll find many allies if you take the above to heart.

Today I saw Erik's post above in /r/Bitcoin and my heart sank. Why would someone who clearly cares so deeply about Bitcoin continue to support such a censored and heavily controlled forum by posting there when he already knows about alternatives like /r/BTC and this forum? I think we should all feel more than a little disappointed by this, and call upon more users to make the switch to platforms that support free speech.

Roger, there is no room for emotion in business.

Switching to platforms that support free speech for a "cause", is the wrong move. You are talking about the survival of Bitcoin and it must be treated very carefully, it has a lot of enemies. Everyone, everyone is watching everybody's moves. Whoever is the most professional and has the best working product shall win.

TIme to stop wasting hours on dust, we have great things to accomplish such as ensuring every mobile device sold is fitted with a crypto/Bitcoin wallet.

[johnyj]

Over the past week, Core has shown a marked improvement in its communication with the community. Creation of BitcoinCore.org was appropraite. Setting up the official twitter account was smart. Encouraging discussion in bitcoincore.slack.com has been excellent. And most recently, Core's post here was very helpful - well-written and informative.
A sincere thank you to Core for demonstrating improvement in this area. Keep it up.
Upon this momentum, may I now offer the following humble suggestion: with two more moves, Core can end the civil war.
This suggestion is based on discussions with various parties over the past two weeks. Anything less than both is unlikely to settle the issue in any meaningful way. That suggestions are being given to Core, as opposed to Core's opponents, is not an indication that Core is "primarily at fault" or that it's Core's sole responsibility to fix things. Rather, it is because Core has the power and position to effect meaningful change, in my opinion.
Move 1) Core clearly commits to a hard fork block size increase, by adding it to its formal roadmap. The specific plan should probably be the 2-4-8 plan, as proposed initially by Adam Back, and which achieved widespread consensus after the scaling conferences. The time to add it to the roadmap is now, and the time to execute the HF should then, within reason, be up to Core's stewardship. This needn't interfere with, and is certainly not a replacement for, the much beloved SegWit.
Move 2) Core formally, publicly, and clearly denounces the censorship that has plagued community discussion, and should apologize for not having done so earlier. Core is not responsible for the censorship, but stood silently by as it happened, allowing widespread mistrust to grow out of control.
If Core can gather the consensus among its members to take these two steps, and can do so with professionalism, humility, and a sincere desire to move forward and help the community heal, then I believe it will.
This would be a victory for the major factions of this divisive issue. We could then all get back to building. There are so many battles ahead to fight against the real enemy. This one, against each other, needs to end.
And please, above all, civility in these discussions is paramount. To Core - thank you for the work you have done, and continue to do. I think you'll find many allies if you take the above to heart.

Today I saw Erik's post above in /r/Bitcoin and my heart sank. Why would someone who clearly cares so deeply about Bitcoin continue to support such a censored and heavily controlled forum by posting there when he already knows about alternatives like /r/BTC and this forum? I think we should all feel more than a little disappointed by this, and call upon more users to make the switch to platforms that support free speech.

Roger, there is no room for emotion in business.

Switching to platforms that support free speech for a "cause", is the wrong move. You are talking about the survival of Bitcoin and it must be treated very carefully, it has a lot of enemies. Everyone, everyone is watching everybody's moves. Whoever is the most professional and has the best working product shall win.

TIme to stop wasting hours on dust, we have great things to accomplish such as ensuring every mobile device sold is fitted with a crypto/Bitcoin wallet.

There is no room for business talk in monetary system discussion. Business is playing games in a monetary system, a monetary system have much higher level of concern than making some money. Those are: Trust, long term sustainability and motivation, which are all violated by Blockstream's current short sighted devs

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Today I saw Erik's post above in /r/Bitcoin and my heart sank. Why would someone who clearly cares so deeply about Bitcoin continue to support such a censored and heavily controlled forum by posting there when he already knows about alternatives like /r/BTC and this forum? I think we should all feel more than a little disappointed by this, and call upon more users to make the switch to platforms that support free speech.

Roger, there is no room for emotion in business.

Switching to platforms that support free speech for a "cause", is the wrong move. You are talking about the survival of Bitcoin and it must be treated very carefully, it has a lot of enemies. Everyone, everyone is watching everybody's moves. Whoever is the most professional and has the best working product shall win.

TIme to stop wasting hours on dust, we have great things to accomplish such as ensuring every mobile device sold is fitted with a crypto/Bitcoin wallet.

There is no room for business talk in monetary system discussion. Business is playing games in a monetary system, a monetary system have much higher level of concern than making some money. Those are: Trust, long term sustainability and motivation, which are all violated by Blockstream's current short sighted devs

There MUST be room for business talk in a monetary system discussion. Business is what drives Bitcoin and will continue to drive Bitcoin.

[btc]

core devs need not apologize for the censors as they are not one in the same as certain bitcoin community mods/managers. i do however believe the core devs should propose a roadmap to achieve a scalable infrastructure. whether or not a decision will be made or code tested fully or a time deadline will be forced upon miners is another ballgame

[LiteCoinGuy]

core devs need not apologize for the censors as they are not one in the same as certain bitcoin community mods/managers. i do however believe the core devs should propose a roadmap to achieve a scalable infrastructure. whether or not a decision will be made or code tested fully or a time deadline will be forced upon miners is another ballgame

they published a roadmap to achieve a scalable infrastructure (LN+SW). not the endgoal, but a plan at least.

[johnyj]

SW, LN, SC, none of these make a lot of sense, they are just like those buzz word QE, FRB, CDS from Wallstreet, intentionally made to confusing people while essentially provide some trivial function that most people don't really need

People have been running bitcoin for 7 years without the need for SW, LN, or SC, why is there such a need now? The demand is all created out of thin air