I see a lot of insults, but little evidence that actually tears my argument apart. Notice how I haven't insulted you once, yet you say I'm difficult to follow, laughable, a conspiracy theorist, completely backwards, cant be taken seriously, unduly panicked, unsubstantiated, fallacious.
Maybe we could focus on the actual discussion itself instead of turning this into a personal thing? I don't enjoy fighting people on the internet.
I do agree that my posts earlier that Bitcoin XT is directly related to the hacker need more proof before things like that can be said. Notice how I didn't discuss that in the article at all.
As for whether this guy is a hacker, this is the definition of hacking. Also a lot easier than saying "the person running the stress test" every time I reference him.
The only thing I don't like about this hacker is that they are hiding the results and trying to tell the community there will be a hack 10X bigger in a week. Fairly immature tactic, the chart above is completely inconsistent with their story that bitcoind crashed early in the test. 18 hours is a decently long time and there were multiple spikes of high transaction fees that evaporated their Bitcoin supply.
Let's run through some of those points, then.
If you'd like to explain how your logic isn't contradictory, I'd love to hear it. Again, if this short term period of disruption is "inconsiderate", "malicious" and "selfish", how is risking the network frequently running in such a fashion by imposing an artificial bottleneck somehow a reasonable option in your opinion? You can't have it both ways. If you think you can, then your logic is difficult to follow.
Jumping to the conclusion in the other thread that this test is tied to the XT developers was unsubstantiated and does sound like the kind of conclusion a conspiracy theorist would jump to, but if you're now withdrawing that comment, I'll happily rescind mine.
There's no other way to describe your argument about fees, it is completely backwards and I feel I've substantiated that claim in the quoted segments in my prior post. If the network never supports more than a set, finite number of transactions per block, even if those users paid a higher fee, there will be insufficient incentive for miners to secure the network once the block reward starts to diminish. You could possibly gamble on the price of a single BTC rising, but that's a major gamble if we start to shed users as a result of poor service because their transactions get stuck in a queue. Bitcoin currently maintains a reputation for being fast, reliable and cheap, but if we ever lose that, I don't see how it could possibly bode well for the price.
Your statement that "
Limited block size would absolutely not limit the amount of users, everyone can send as much transactions as they want at any time as long as they pay a fee" is
completely, unequivocally and undeniably fallacious. It's just plain wrong to state that as a fact when it's untrue. Once a block is full, by definition, it is full. At present, you can't fit more than 1MB worth of transactions into one block. Ergo, if there are more than 1MB worth of transactions waiting, some of those transactions will be delayed, even if a fee is included with every single one. There is literally no denying this. That's how Bitcoin works at present. If nothing else, you need to concede that point.
