This tidbit tells me everything I need to know about him : "I supported the first blocksize increase proposal, Bitcoin XT. I changed my mind because of logical inquiry and discussion. "
Good thing he changed his mind! Hahaha
I never supported Bitcoin XT.
That's why "no change" must be the default. Any change must be absolutely necessary, not just maybe a "nice to have". The unknown unknowns are precisely why we have to be conservative.
Both changing and not changing Bitcoin present equal risk of unknown unknown, it is inherent in the very nature of what that is.
That's an interesting point. I am not sure I agree. Does the risk of "unknown unknowns" not decrease over time? Intuitively, I would think so but maybe I am missing something.
Why would it decrease over time? I could see the amount of unknowns increasing over time just as much as it could go down.
I agree with the idea that you can't not do something because of unknowns. That doesn't mean you have to do it though. You simple take caution because there might be a lot of unknowns. e.g. in the Agile development world if there are a lot of "unknowns" you just increase the story point therefore signaling that the story/task is more difficult and could take longer.
preventing them from even having a conversation about whether we even like cats (or dogs) at all.
It's funny to me that they are making this claim. I suppose you can't force anyone to have a conversation, but by bitcoin magazine posting this article it does in fact allow conversation. So IMO this article proves this article wrong.
"The reason conversations around consensus are a dysfunctional mess is not because of the people proposing changes, its because of the people refusing to listen in good faith"
I never supported Bitcoin XT.