Topic: Another Crazy week in the Bitcoin Block Size Debate (Read 1110 times)

Well, in fairness there is the little issue of Obama promising a veto (which would be sustained by the Democrat minority). So they've staged dozens of show votes, but nothing really could be done until Obama is out. So the real test has not yet come. But the evidence from 2000-2006 is instructive, as it shows that Republicans will talk one thing, but utterly fail to do anything in that direction in practice. That's why the two remaining "establishment" candidates (Kasich/Rubio) are collectively garnering a whopping 20% of the Republican primary vote. People are sick of it.

Peercoin was supposed to fulfil the 'heavy payload' role in the cryptocurrency eco-system.

It has high fees and anti-span characteristics built right into the blockchain. I don't say that as a bagholder (I have a couple of hundred left over form the "old days" but no big interest) but as a technical observer.

How different things would be if technical diversity was acknowledged, accepted and encouraged by all concerned instead of being shunned because they think the market likes "consolidation" into a single, monopolising solution.

I really hate that hypocritical aspect of the core developers philosophy. While their words speak of liberty, their actions are informed by monopolistic mindsets - presumably because that's the world they grew up in and is all they know. Their philosophy is not based on freeing us from monopoly but on replacing it with another.

It's not that difficult to envisage a completely different commercial landscape from the one that's emerging - one that's diverse instead of conformist. One that's formed from a variety of blockchains performing distinct monetary roles instead of a hierarchy of scaffolding around a single one that has to perform in all roles. It doesn't mean you can't have a common transactional denomination at the point of sale, it just takes imagination and new ways of thinking about commerce and currency.

The scaling problem that's occurring now is all to do with the commercial distinction between large and small transactions. That was all envisaged 3 years ago in the Peercoin whitepaper - and solved in a far more creative and direct way than the sorry scramble thats going on with bitcoin right now. First it's cash, then it isn't now it's a "kind of" settlement layer. A sad state of affairs that does not do justice to the original ideals, partly because a tiny number of individuals are too hung up on Bitcoin having been a "one off event" and can't imagine their way out of a paper bag never mind a box.

People should be more vocal about the kind of world they want to see instead of just giving in to technologists based on their expertise. The right solution is not the technically most obvious one. The right solution is the one that people want. It's the technologist's job to facilitate the vision, not to provide it.

This.

Welcome to the world of OpenSource and a public Blockchain project. The debate on technical specifications is healthy, but what is not healthy is the personal attacks. We do not need to get personal and attack individuals. You can point out their agendas and their goals without getting personal. The developers are actually a bunch of cool and very talented people and we have to respect what they contributed and still do. If you see something that these guys are doing that may hurt Bitcoin, just point it out without getting too personal.

Just concentrate on the technology and the problems associated with this, not the politics involved with the power struggles.   

He's living in another dimension apparently.

No. It can happen either because: 1) Your fees were inadequate (your fault); 2) Block timing was unusual (this can't be solved). Bitcoin transactions are near-instant (if you accept zero-confirmation TXs).

Additionally it shows that there are a decent amount of people who want to take over and push their agendas through. If they cared about the development and Bitcoin itself, they'd spend less time complaining (e.g. Armstrong) and would hire coders.

Every time devs are fighting over pointless arguments bitcoin price goes down.
I was really happy that after that Hong Kong conference, that this bullshit with increasing/not increasing block size, and how to do it is finally over.
But I guess we can have more useless fighting just to piss of people and investors.

Would you expect anything less from the Republicrats running the establishment?

Why did the republicans fall in love with Obamacare after it passed? I thought that once the Republicans took the House, they would remove it like they promised?

answer:

The Republicans only pretended to hate Obamacare. The sole purpose of their public "fight" with the Democrats over this issue was to distract you from your inevitable schlonging!

Think for yourself

Personally I do not like debate. However, this debate shows that there are still people who care about the development of bitcoin- there is still hope.

Hopefully some constructive path will come along and this is important for the growth of bitcoin.

+10

Agreed lol  ;

The debate ended, Faggart. Tell Franky, he thinks it's still 2015

its working slowly as intended. And is it slow. Took over an hour to get 1 confirmation today.

why is Lauda still thinking he is the expert on all things blocksize,

just a couple weeks ago he thought that bitcoin was coded in java

he has no clue about a single line of bitcoin code, i think its time he accepted all his theories get debunked by real scenarios, statistics and better opinions then his own

This is a great post & probably very close to the truth.

People tend to make a mistake when they talk about Blockstream's 'solution'. They tend to associate the Lightning Network as a product of Blockstream which is false. While the user might be talking about sidechains (which are not a proposed solution; in which case my assumption would be wrong), the only currently known way to accommodate a lot of users is the second layer (the Lightning Network). It should be able to accommodate 30 million users at a 1 MB block size limit (according to the whitepaper; IIRC).

---

---

Update: Removed faulty statement. I apologize.

What about Blockstream's solution makes you prefer it over other options?

I agree, I was expecting it to fall much more than it did considering all the frustration over slow confirmations and drama going on.

This shit show is a deliberate attempt at suppressing the price prior to the halving so the big dogs can curb out the weaklings and get their last round of cheap coins. If you haven't backed the truck up yet, it's time to do so or cry later. Very few people around here can truly comprehend what an actual bull rally looks like in the midst of or in the wake of a halving. Once it's set in motion, the world will be looking to pile in as they see very little other options for growth in a worldwide downturn which hasn't been seen before in such extremes.

It seems to me that the solution suggested by Blockstream is preferred at the moment. I am a little bit concerned about the future stability of Bitcoin if they are going to continue the farce.  

with all that is going on i am surprised that the price has stayed as stable as it is......