1. Not a "fanboi", have shown that dozens of ways over the years. I view Monero as an immensely valuable tool, but I'm not a maximalist, am open and honest about shortcomings, etc.
  2. Glad you finally deemed me worthy of a reply instead of just honing your echo chamber!
  3. I rebutted your poorly informed claims about Monero and Lightning privacy point-by-point here and offered to discuss it further, and you never replied. Care to now? https://twitter.com/sethforprivacy/status/1514372798113886210
  4. Writing one Go library 5y ago certainly does not tell me anything about your understanding of Monero today, and if anything explains why your knowledge of Monero seems to be archaic and dated.
  5. If you had taken the time to read before rage-replying you'd realize I was saying that as a point against "Monero hard-forks regularly" and against the normal "Monero hard-forks every 6mo" FUD that you spread usually. Neither of those are true, and Monero's lack of regular hard-forks for years shows that.
  6. Yes, you have to update software (gasp) every few years or you can't use Monero. That's both a good thing for an improving tool in the ever-evolving race for privacy, and ensures all users adopt critical bug fixes etc. over time. If you don't like that you can use another chain that lacks privacy and doesn't iterate like Bitcoin. You also completely overlook the whole "social consensus" and "non-contentious" aspects of my response, as no Monero hard-fork has been contentious as the upgrades proposed are just continuing to improve on the things that are core to Monero's ethos. Similarly to most bitcoin changes, people approve and so they choose to run them. You also (of course) left out the whole "the entire community has a say in hard-forks and can propose/review code, participate in meetings (all are open), and give feedback through every step of the process". But you don't seem to want people to know the truth.
  7. There is no "they" deciding everything. I have no idea where you get this idea that there is some person pulling all the strings in Monero, but it's a decentralized grassroots community just like Bitcoin, and all community members can (and many do) contribute to the planning, code, and process of hard-forking to upgrade the network.
  8. I have never said that centralization isn't a problem, I am always very clear about that. My claim is that Monero is decentralized and it's one I will 100% stand by. It's in some ways more decentralized than Bitcoin, in some ways less, but is absolutely more decentralized than almost all cryptocurrencies and decentralization is a core aspect of its ethos.
  9. LOL at affinity scammer, I have contributed without recompense to both Bitcoin and Monero thousands of hours worth of effort. A ridiculous claim, and one you'd know was false if you didn't just block me and anyone else you don't want to hear dissenting responses from. You love your echo chamber, and I don't fit in it. That is fine, but leave the insults and egregious claims about my character out of this.
-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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. (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.
  4. 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.
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.