pull down to refresh
as there are simply two mutually exclusive ideas about it and it hasn't sounded like anyone is willing to compromise.
It seems that this would imply that we should have two separate chains. I'm not sure that such a thing would be a bad outcome, but I am also naive here. Probably there are lots of reasons Bitcoiners have already long-debated why two separate chains = one winner, one loser.
probably best ignored
I go through phases where I ignore it and phases where I am caught up in it. When I am caught up in it, I tell myself that perhaps the conversation will be more tenable if there are more voices who aren't willing to shoot for insult and accusation (maybe just not as willing).
reply
The discussion over definitions can be easily solved if parties are willing. The discussion over solutions is much harder to resolve as there are simply two mutually exclusive ideas about it and it hasn't sounded like anyone is willing to compromise. I therefore think that solving the definition discussion isn't going to reconcile anything.
The polarization is real. The causes, even including some of the nastier accusations, are probably real too. But the intent each side ascribes to the other is all that is being talked about, and those are missing nuance.
Thus, it's been an echo chamber of shit slinging for years now, and it's probably best ignored.