Topic: . - page 33. (Read 24756 times)
not so against any kind of increase in the max block size
The Bitcoin Core capacity roadmap includes several block size increases, including the immediate term segwit proposal that many people are actively working on (and which has a testnet)-- which increases the capacity to fairly close to Gavin's latest proposal (which is not BIP 102). The market loves it!! 
It is because of the uncertainty behind the future of Bitcoin. If the core devs were not so against any kind of increase in the max block size then the market would react differently. When the first block that "voted" for XT was mined someone sold 20k BTC on bitfinex (likely because of the uncertainty)
Speculation: More and more Core devs will start to cash out if BIP 102 takes off.
The market loves it!!
It is because of the uncertainty behind the future of Bitcoin. If the core devs were not so against any kind of increase in the max block size then the market would react differently. When the first block that "voted" for XT was mined someone sold 20k BTC on bitfinex (likely because of the uncertainty)
Speculation: More and more Core devs will start to cash out if BIP 102 takes off.
The market loves it!!
It is because of the uncertainty behind the future of Bitcoin. If the core devs were not so against any kind of increase in the max block size then the market would react differently. When the first block that "voted" for XT was mined someone sold 20k BTC on bitfinex (likely because of the uncertainty)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
The guy's trying to save BTC. I hope he will be successful but it's hard to be optimistic. He failed last year because of rats who don't want to change anything which would reduce their domination. Gavin's brave! Without him, or people like him, BTC would be dead already. What is going to happen when there will be 300,000 transactions each day? Then 500,000. I'd like to dream there's one million transactions everyday, but that's impossible at this stage. Too many miners just don't want BTC to grow.
Well, it's a hell of a time to start all this up again; Classic only just hit the deck, plus the Core team are in the middle of getting 0.12 out. Gavin seems to be part of more PR campaigns than he is coding teams these days
It only ever stopped in the minds of the #rektards
from lofty pronouncements about 20MB, to the insidious 8MB (to start) XT, and now deserted by his crony in chief, discredited and doubted, and humbled down to 2MB in a pathetic last ditch attempt at it...
there's almost a tragic quality about it - at least hearn's typically english 'throw down the handbag and flounce off in a huff' was funny...
i don't hate the guy, but come on, it's all so emblematic, aint it ?
there's almost a tragic quality about it - at least hearn's typically english 'throw down the handbag and flounce off in a huff' was funny...
i don't hate the guy, but come on, it's all so emblematic, aint it ?
I'm sorry for the ignorance, but does this mean a hard-fork is coming soon?
Any blocksize change can be done only by forking, there is no other way. So when community accept said solution then yes, fork will happen. 
I'm sorry for the ignorance, but does this mean a hard-fork is coming soon?
This is code that has been submitted to Core for their review. A hard fork would only occur if this code were implemented and 75% mining power agreed. This would be followed by a 28-day grace period after which time older clients would not be compatible with the network.
I think this proposal will be given serious consideration. For all intents and purposes, this is the "Satoshi BIP." It's what Satoshi would have done in this situation.
Jump to: