The ugly thing is I think everyone in this process recognises the meta-consensus nature of the debate already. Notice how Gavin Andresen's initial blocksize posts were in the form of a non-technical blog, making non-technical arguments to the public - not the Core dev team - in ways not conducive to open response. A rather annoying example is Jeff Garzik's recent efforts: a fundementally broken troll pull-req raising the blocksize to 2MB that simply can't be merged for reasons unrelated to the blocksize, followed by very public and loud efforts to spin a non-issue - closing a pull-req that had no real impact on blockchain capacity - into a broader reddit furor over a "changed" policy on scaling. As a PR effort to the public this was fairly effective: framing the Core dev team's actions as a change and raising the blocksize as a default action puts the team on the defensive. As a way of building consensus among the Core dev team, Garzik's actions are very counterproductive.
You are correct. It is also counterproductive to take cheap shots at vendors in order to garner consulting revenue. Measuring risk in a systematic way against known metrics is the way to go. Tweeting, blogging, and drama are generally counterproductive.
When the issue is raised most of the developers shun the idea so until some of the developers become mature and experienced you will be left with all this teenager nonsense where everybody calls each other "trolls" on Reddit instead of engaging in real risk analysis.
Russ _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
