Fortunately most people want it to keep it working how it is now.
Umm... No?
Dude he is pro fork...
Oh wait you don't read peoples posts you just skim through them quickly so you can post a witty reply.
Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 28. (Read 154787 times)
Dude he is pro fork...
Oh wait you don't read peoples posts you just skim through them quickly so you can post a witty reply.
To answer your question, only the most important/valuable tx deserve/afford eternal preservation in Bitcoin's most precious footprint.
LOL central banker talk!
Here's a new one, if you choose to use it:
Fortunately most people want it to keep it working how it is now.
Umm... No? 
Gavin's GigaBloat proposal calls for 95% support, which is far less than what the poll here reports.
The poll reads that opinion is 80% in support or "relatively OK" with the change. Only 20% is firmly against. This is the same proportion as 2 years ago. So it looks like this ratio will never change. Has any project, organization or community ever functioned long term with 95% support for every major decision? No!
What is most insidious about the 1MB limit is that this is software which has not yet had a significant effect. If it never existed then maybe the blockchain would be 41GB instead of 40GB in size (because a few dozen extra large blocks might have been mined and built upon). So basicially the situation is this:
1) Increase the 1MB limit = keep Bitcoin working the same as it is now.
2) Keep the 1MB limit = perform a radical economic experiment on Bitcoin.
Both 1 and 2 have risks for decentralization, perhaps 2 more so, as a lot of full node owners have bought into the ideal of a global currency and payments system, which would be put at grave risk if the radical experiment goes wrong.
Fortunately most people want it to keep it working how it is now.
See? I'm not the only one who thinks your BS claim is wrong.
Okay buddy, while you cry to me about false claims, we're going to hit that 1MB limit and you're going to either see Gavin's block start appearing, or people start fleeing Bitcoin like rats from a sinking ship.Your precious ledger will be little more than a hipster curiosity and a lot of people are going to regret that they ever invest in something so limited and unscalable.
Thank God nobody agrees with you.
Keeping a 1MB block limit will make the fees rise to a competitive level.
If the fees are higher than WU or SWIFT then it's logical that people will migrateback to those systems to other coins' less crowded/expensive/slow blockchains. Understood? Was it hard?
If the fees are higher than WU or SWIFT then it's logical that people will migrate
Fixed it for you.
That means a lot coming from someone with Monero on their sig. 
You haven't even addressed the question: who gets to access the blockchain beyond 3 tx/sec?
Clearly you're avoiding this issue, just like how all the 1MB proponents are avoiding the poll above.
One look at the poll and the writing is on the wall my friend, and there is nothing you 1MB supporters can do to stop Gavin's proposal. You can scream about it in this thread if you want. Not going to help.
You haven't even addressed the question: who gets to access the blockchain beyond 3 tx/sec?
Clearly you're avoiding this issue, just like how all the 1MB proponents are avoiding the poll above.
One look at the poll and the writing is on the wall my friend, and there is nothing you 1MB supporters can do to stop Gavin's proposal. You can scream about it in this thread if you want. Not going to help.
Where is the evidence "most of the 20MB opponents are altcoin supporters?"
Maybe the problem is you are dumb like Rick Perry and have trouble counting numbers higher than two.
You made the stupid claim, so provide evidence it's true or walk it back.
Most forum members against the fork are Monero backers you say.
How many exactly?
I can only count 2 in this thread.
How many exactly?
I can only count 2 in this thread.
See? I'm not the only one who thinks your BS claim is wrong.
I already answered your question about which tx should be included. Next time, please try paying attention instead of loudly demanding answers.
To answer your question, only the most important/valuable tx deserve/afford eternal preservation in Bitcoin's most precious footprint.
Gavin's GigaBloat proposal calls for 95% support, which is far less than what the poll here reports.
Swift and wu move fiat. What the fuck has it in common with Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is a revolution because it's trustless and decentralized, not because fees are low.
Try to read: I didn't say Gavin don't understand Bitcoin. I said he speak like if he don't understand. Maybe he have reasons to do this, not my business. (I can guess some)
But but but... here's the thing: Gavin is right and you're wrong. Bitcoin is a revolution because it's trustless and decentralized, not because fees are low.
Try to read: I didn't say Gavin don't understand Bitcoin. I said he speak like if he don't understand. Maybe he have reasons to do this, not my business. (I can guess some)
When I read gavin's post, I don't see that he understand the strength of Bitcoin.
Because he says if we can't have more transactions, people will leave for western union or swift.
Because it will be cheaper.
He speaks like if he doesn't understand Bitcoin and swift are apples and oranges.
Swift and wu move government uncontrolled tokens.
Bitcoin is about independent money...
Because he says if we can't have more transactions, people will leave for western union or swift.
Because it will be cheaper.
He speaks like if he doesn't understand Bitcoin and swift are apples and oranges.
Swift and wu move government uncontrolled tokens.
Bitcoin is about independent money...
LOL. Yes you are right. Gavin doesn't understand Bitcoin. Be right back in 5 mins to laugh my ass off!
Let me put it this way. Keeping a 1MB block limit will make the fees rise to a competitive level. If the fees are higher than WU or SWIFT then it's logical that people will migrate back to those systems. Understood? Was it hard?
When I read gavin's post, I don't see that he understand the strength of Bitcoin.
Because he says if we can't have more transactions, people will leave for western union or swift.
Because it will be cheaper.
He speaks like if he doesn't understand Bitcoin and swift are apples and oranges.
Swift and wu move government uncontrolled tokens.
Bitcoin is about independent money...
What he said is actually not wrong. Have you completely read the thread from DeathAndTaxes, that would explain it. Because he says if we can't have more transactions, people will leave for western union or swift.
Because it will be cheaper.
He speaks like if he doesn't understand Bitcoin and swift are apples and oranges.
Swift and wu move government uncontrolled tokens.
Bitcoin is about independent money...
eh, dont be so pessimistic.
this sort of alarmist claim, with no empirical ground whatsoever, is precisely the focus of the disagreement between pros and antis.
we're all here in the hope that bitcoin does not fade into oblivion, but i suggest you first let the sentiments and distress aside.
one would argue that there is no problem yet to be solved.. we're just tuning in circles here.
Well this is a difficult problem. If it was a problem today, right now, Bitcoin would probably be dying. eh, dont be so pessimistic.
this sort of alarmist claim, with no empirical ground whatsoever, is precisely the focus of the disagreement between pros and antis.
we're all here in the hope that bitcoin does not fade into oblivion, but i suggest you first let the sentiments and distress aside.
one would argue that there is no problem yet to be solved.. we're just tuning in circles here.
Well this is a difficult problem. If it was a problem today, right now, Bitcoin would probably be dying. 
one would argue that there is no problem yet to be solved.. we're just tuning in circles here.
if this would be a current problem it already would be too late.
a hardfork takes time as everybody needs to update.
btw i think it is already a current problem as we already sometimes have full blocks and a backlog - atm its just not a big problem.
one would argue that there is no problem yet to be solved.. we're just tuning in circles here.
I dont understand whats the real problem with 20mb fork, its obviously necessary to keep up with advancement. Bitcoin never was hard coded and thats that,
pieces were allready fixed and changed, and so will this one.
There are some risks to make this move, but in capable hands, even if it backfires, it will be patched up real soon, so just let it go.
cheers
The problem, like with almost everything, lies in the people.pieces were allready fixed and changed, and so will this one.
There are some risks to make this move, but in capable hands, even if it backfires, it will be patched up real soon, so just let it go.
cheers
Rejecting the proposed solution by Gavin, without presenting another one, is illogical. That's what they've been doing the whole time, complaining or making up weird arguments.
He doesn't care. Having to trust centralized master archive nodes is a small price to pay for his dream of achieving maximum Bitcoin monopoly.
Because God forbid retail consumers don't use the same tool to buy coffee as financial institutions use to settle million/billion dollar deals.
In Roadkill's feverish mind, even the suggestion 'perhaps an altcoin would better for using at Starbucks' makes you an evil shill.
Because God forbid retail consumers don't use the same tool to buy coffee as financial institutions use to settle million/billion dollar deals.
In Roadkill's feverish mind, even the suggestion 'perhaps an altcoin would better for using at Starbucks' makes you an evil shill.
I am sure that it will not be so bad as you imagine it and that some end users will still be able to maintain the archive nodes. Even if they don't then I am sure that we can R&D the technology to verify the integrity of the archive nodes in a way that can't be hacked and that there will be some sort of trustless central nodes available. It's all about R&D!
And suggesting the use of an altcoin for Starbucks doesn't make you an evil shit. Supporting scamming/failed companies that promise unrealistic things makes you an evil shit!
You fear we must fix Bitcoin until it breaks in order to save it from certain death? I find your lack of faith disturbing.
This is where you fail to understand Bitcoin. It's in the early days and it is Beta. We need to break it to make it tougher! Also you forgot that we have some checkpoints and lots of people that are constantly checking the health of the Bitcoin network. If shit hits the fan the alarms will go off instantly. We had this in the past and Bitcoin survived! Why do you think it will not survive again? I am pro testing/breaking/whatever since I am aware that we have some fail-safe mechanisms in place. I know that even if something goes horribly wrong Bitcoin can recover. It was properly designed to allow this! You evil scamming shit!
roadstress on every page sometimes multiple times, insults, repeating same strawman arguemtns over and over again, frequent use of ad hominem, very emotional style of debate, immune to reasoning, bad skills in processing informations which aren't reflecting his own standpoint. Very unpleasant to read and drags down quality.
Just what my impression is.
Just what my impression is.
Have you paid any attention to who I address the insults? You didn't. Go back and check. I only insult the scammers and the sock-puppets accounts of MP who tried to hijack this thread. Tard Icebreaker used to support HashFail, a failed mining manufacturer, who managed to scam all its customers out of 40M$-50M$.
I assume that you are a sock-puppet account too...
yes that's true. roadstress sucks at thinking and writing. we've all noticed that. i suggest you ignore his pointless posts.
Go eat shit you scammer supporter!
If you don't want to pay a competitive tx fee for Bitcoin's bulletproof Rolls Royce of blockchains, off-chain banking is one option.
How about everyone that has supported a scammer/failed business pays a competitive fee for posting on this forum? I would definitely vote for that!
I just noticed that most of the 20MB opponents are altcoin supporters. They're the same people who would troll sidechain proposals too. They don't want positive things for Bitcoin.
Neither Theymos nor MP nor tvbcof nor NewLibery nor sardokan nor davout nor Pete Dushenski are "altcoin supporters."
And tvbcof is one of the loudest proponents of sidechains.
Good luck trying to walk back your bullshit claims.
It's almost like these 1MB'er wants Bitcoin to die on purpose. Madness.
You fear we must fix Bitcoin until it breaks in order to save it from certain death? I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Bitcoin is antifragile. It thrives in the face of adversity and scarcity.
The madness here is the megolomania and hubris displayed by the Monopolist Maximalist camp.
You are right in Bitcoin being antifragile though, which is why it's going to evolve past 1MB. See the poll above? We can argue all day, but the writing is on the wall.
And please tell me, who gets to access the blockchain past 3 tx/sec?
The plebeians will be tired of unconfirmed transactions, and quickly discover the wonders of off-chain banking!
There you go again, with the 'zomg something must be done RIGHT NOW think of the children' FUD. Creating an artificial need is Sales 101.
"Cripple Bitcoin?"
You still lack faith in Bitcoin's antifragility. It cannot be crippled on a temporary basis without growing stronger on a permanent one.
If you don't want to pay a competitive tx fee for Bitcoin's bulletproof Rolls Royce of blockchains, off-chain banking is one option.
Another, better, option which you pretend does not exist is to use a different blockchain. Litecoin is the Toyota of blockchains; Primecoin is the Tata, etc.
To answer your question, only the most important/valuable tx deserve/afford eternal preservation in Bitcoin's most precious footprint.
The writing is on the wall, but you are reading it wrong. It says nowhere near the required 95% of the community supports the GigaBloat fork.
Jump to: