Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 135. (Read 378996 times)

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile.

The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately.

The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately.

I think icebreaker missed that part:

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

No. The recent spam attacks prove this wrong. The limit is useless.

All of them are years away from being ready, tested and proven to be secure. None of them are acceptable solutions. Bitcoin will be forked way before that.

The spam attack proved some people are immune to logic and reason 

As long as txs are included under cost, anything that raises fees is good for sustainability. With the spam attack, we saw the average fee raise. This is GOOD without any shadow of a doubt.

Ideally we should be having full blocks all the time and some backlog so there may appear a fee market. Especially after the halving as mining gaps will appear and they will weaken the network otherwise.

In theory it could also be better with an increased blocksize, since with an eight megabyte blocksize it would theoretically be eight times more expensive to attack Bitcoin by overloading the network. From my perspective the limit represents the cliff that causes transactions not be confirmed when the network becomes overloaded.

If there was no limit, the consequences would be even worse in theory, because it would be like having no brake, so you would be pushed against a cliff without no way to stop. The bloat is a defense mechanism in a way. We need a good intermediate solution and raising the blockchain to a ridiculous level doesn't seem like one.

The spam attack proved the spam limit is useless 

No. The recent spam attacks prove this wrong. The limit is useless.

No. The recent spam attacks prove this wrong. The limit is useless.

I was just pointing out that this is the original vision of Bitcoin, not increasing the block size is actually the change, in order to keep Bitcoin the same we must change it.

I do think that we should stick with the fundamental original vision of Bitcoin. I also think that if we do want to fundamentally change Bitcoin then this is best done within an altcoin. Since this would not betray the original social contract of Bitcoin.

We should embrace alternative cryptocurrencies as an extension of the concept of voluntarism. I do think that for the people here that are preaching one megabyte blocks forever, it would be better if they adopt an altcoin instead since that would create less conflict and division as opposed to trying to force your beliefs onto Bitcoin, which I do think some of the Core developers are presently doing. Bitcoin is peer to peer digital cash. Bitcoin is also a commodity and a currency. Bitcoin is trust without decentralized authority which can be applied to many different applications. I do not agree with the concept of restricting Bitcoin to just one of these use cases. Bitcoin can and should do all of these things, especially when there is no good reason to restrict its use.

I want decentralization and financial freedom as well you know, please keep that in mind, most of us are and should be on the same side, we are all Bitcoiners together and we share these principles in common at least.

No. The recent spam attacks prove this wrong. The limit is useless.

The conditions under which Satoshi himself established a block size limit, remain today.

The conditions under which Satoshi himself established a block size limit, remain today.

Satoshi was being realistic about its own design unlike all of you small blockists who didn't had the genius to invent bitcoin. He obviously wasn't locked up in a prison of fear.

As I have already responded to sgbett in a similar way, I will say it again that Satoshi didn't put a timeline on that particular configuration. We can likely start aiming in that direction once democratically elected governments are no longer in debt to "the big block institutions" and the global internet infrastructure doesn't run the risk of being censored with regards to Bitcoin's increased traffic.