Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 40. (Read 154794 times)

I'm just pointing out that most forum members against the 20mb fork are associated with Monero.
That's called an observation and I find it interesting.

If they are as stubborn as you say, then big red letters won't make their stubbornness go away.

So what?  Am I not allowed to express/explain my own unique opinion on the matter?

Neither Theymos nor tvbcof nor NewLibery nor sardokan nor davout nor Pete Dushenski mentioned Monero.

That should be your clue that the minor details of my idiosyncratic perspective on the matter aren't especially germane to the issue at large.

Ah well, since you aren't good at thinking or argumentation, go ahead and seize on any little thing that helps you feel like you found a 'Gotcha.'  

If you can't make your point with small black letters, then there's something wrong with the statement, and not with the typography.

Sorry but small black letters didn't seem to be working.

I'm sick of the "herp derp cheap 1TB hard drive" canard.

The issue with 20MB blocks is bandwidth, not storage.

Big red letters make statements automatically more credible.

I looked at your past posts, and they mostly consist of Monero statements. 

You've got a great career in politics.  Fantastic talent at avoiding the issues.  I would wait around for an actual reply, but I know you don't have one.  At the end of the day, there's going to be a fork and for all your mindless bleating, you're going to come quietly in the end.

You think that because you are an idiot.

MP is certainly no fan of altcoins.  Neither is Theymos or tvbcof or NewLibery or sardokan or davout or Pete Dushenski.

Any other stupid baseless easily demolished opinions you'd like to share?   

I'm beginning to think you only support the Monopolist Maximalist fork because you want altcoins held back, so that your Bitcoin can rise.

Since you love Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish so much perhaps you should suggest we bundle Internet Explorer in all BTC clients!   

The only valid argument I've heard is the one where in future, it might lead to centralisation if the hardware requirements to run a full node are too great for the average user.

I'm beginning to think they only oppose the fork because they want Bitcoin held back, so that their altcoin can rise.

Our reasons for opposing the fork have already been explained in great detail.  But you won't accept them, so you have to be paranoid and impute Secret Hidden Reasons.

Instead of using your psychic abilities to divine our True Motivations, perhaps you should be worrying about damage to the Bitcoin brand occurring as a result of this completely unnecessary Great Schism.

The world has always been and will always be an "elitist utopia."  Sorry if you believed that Bitcoin was your free ticket out of that reality and into the promised land of your Free Shit Army.

But yes, best of luck with your HubrisCoin.  Have fun being destroyed by MP and his fellow neo-royalist reactionaries.  

If you're so determined to have everyone's less "valuable" transactions on another chain, why are you opposing the fork?  Once we've forked, you'll never have to see another $2 coffee wasting precious space in your blocks again.  You should be happy to see us go.  Unless, of course, you end up having to admit that you need the rest of us to make this whole thing work.  Somehow it feels like we still haven't had an honest answer from your side about your real motives here.  I mean, which is it?  You say you want a system that doesn't include small transactions, but you want us all to stick around and support a network that will eventually be of no use to us because our "lesser" transactions won't make it in because the blocks are full?  You can't have your cake and eat it.  Either it works for the masses or it doesn't work.  That's Econ 101.  

You know full well that if you had a coin that only whales used, it would die a horrible death.  Otherwise you'd have done it by now.  You don't want to be kings of a worthless little molehill, so you need the rest of us.  So climb down from your high horse, admit that you're nothing without the rest of us and drop the whole elitist utopia bullshit.  You know that if there's a fork and you don't tag along, your ideals will only last about as long as the value of your network holds out, which I doubt would be very long without anyone else to hold it up for you.  All the bad things you claim will happen with a 20mb block won't happen to you if you stay on the old 1MB chain.  So why do you care if we fork?  Why are you so scared that we might leave you behind?  We'll survive without you, but you won't survive without us.  You know it.  We know it.  You have no other reason to oppose the fork.  

You.  Need.  Us.

When blocks grow to >1MB, less important (IE valuable) transactions will simply move to other less cluttered blockchains.

Individual central/local banks and payment networks will be replaced by any combination of sufficiently secured blockchains (merged mined and/or using different POWs).  The dark pools will be denominated in Monero.  Bitcoin isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for everyone and everything, although its blockchain technology will be extended for those purposes.

If you're so determined to have everyone's less "valuable" transactions on another chain, why are you opposing the fork?  Once we've forked, you'll never have to see another $2 coffee wasting precious space in your blocks again.  You should be happy to see us go.  Unless, of course, you end up having to admit that you need the rest of us to make this whole thing work.  Somehow it feels like we still haven't had an honest answer from your side about your real motives here.  I mean, which is it?  You say you want a system that doesn't include small transactions, but you want us all to stick around and support a network that will eventually be of no use to us because our "lesser" transactions won't make it in because the blocks are full?  You can't have your cake and eat it.  Either it works for the masses or it doesn't work.  That's Econ 101.  

You know full well that if you had a coin that only whales used, it would die a horrible death.  Otherwise you'd have done it by now.  You don't want to be kings of a worthless little molehill, so you need the rest of us.  So climb down from your high horse, admit that you're nothing without the rest of us and drop the whole elitist utopia bullshit.  You know that if there's a fork and you don't tag along, your ideals will only last about as long as the value of your network holds out, which I doubt would be very long without anyone else to hold it up for you.  All the bad things you claim will happen with a 20mb block won't happen to you if you stay on the old 1MB chain.  So why do you care if we fork?  Why are you so scared that we might leave you behind?  We'll survive without you, but you won't survive without us.  You know it.  We know it.  You have no other reason to oppose the fork.  

You.  Need.  Us.

Your lack of faith, imagination, and economic literacy does not constitute an emergency for Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is antifragile.  That means rather than fail in the face of adversity it grows stronger.

When blocks grow to >1MB, less important (IE valuable) transactions will simply move to other less cluttered blockchains.

This is Econ 101.  This is Julian Simon winning The Bet against doom-mongering catastrophist Paul Ehrlich.  This is the Substitution Effect, powered by the invisible hand.

Your Maximalist Monopolist conceit that Bitcoin is the only available blockchain in the entire universe (and thus must be all-inclusive) is demonstrably false.

Bitcoin The Canonical Reference Implementation's job is to replace the BIS, not fucking Visa, Paypal, Western Union, and little Sally's piggy bank.

The BIS effects every coffee purchase in the world, but not directly.  Bitcoin, as the new digital gold standard, is destined to do the same job, only better.

Individual central/local banks and payment networks will be replaced by any combination of sufficiently secured blockchains (merged mined and/or using different POWs).  The dark pools will be denominated in Monero.  Bitcoin isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for everyone and everything, although its blockchain technology will be extended for those purposes.

A $2 coffee or $20 remittance to Africa doesn't belong in the same dataset as billion dollar trans-institutional settlements.  If you insist they must cohabitate, Bitcoin will collapse under its own weigh, a hypertrophic dinosaur victim of its own success ready to die in the nearest tar pit or meteor crater.  

At most, blocksize should double when block reward halves.  Anything more is an inflationary free-rider-subsidizing Bloatcoin/Gavincoin/GigaCoin/VisaCoin alt-fork, not BTC proper.  

To believe that trade-offs do not exist and 20MB blocks are somehow magically free is also economic illiteracy.  Econ 101 tells us if you raise the cost of full nodes, you will have less of them.  

Expensive/limited bandwidth, not cheap disk space, is the problem (regardless of what RoadStress the idiot says).  The present ad-hoc attempts to subsidize nodes are a glaring admission of market failure, which will be greatly exacerbated by 20MB+ blocks.

Gavin's 20MB proposal is 100% textbook 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.'  Specifically, the 'Extend' phase.  And then comes the axe, as slow/hardened connections cannot propagate the bloat and nodes outside of Equation Group-vulnerable datacenters go dark, tearing holes in our mesh until only a fragile patchwork remains.

Keep Bitcoin Elite!^TM

Yes they do.

-Satoshi
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Every single transaction that pays the cost per kB belongs in the blockchain, and the cost per kB should be low enough to make all reasonable transactions feasible. A $2 cup of coffee belongs in the blockchain every bit as much as a $200 payment.