Topic: Please remove a serious design flaw: make bitcoin-system (real)time-scalable (Read 1238 times)

I'm ready to fork BitCoin over the broken tx fee system!!

The writing of your first post very highly suggests that you don't have enough technical knowledge about the points you provide. If you wonder why people don't take your post seriously, that might very well be a reason (I am sure for me it is). If you do care and really want some change (as opposed to just trolling), educate yourself on the inner workings of bitcoin, before you make any such suggestions.
(I know I don't provide any actual examples of inaccuracies, I don't have the time nor will to do this, there are so many incompetent people here anyway. But I wrote this post for the off chance that you maybe are not ignorant by nature, and only uneducated in Bitcoin.)

I lol'd.

edit: even more so with the above post... chilling.

I know this all. And thus I have to pay, because I'm defined to be a "non-bitcoiner" arbitrarily -- from email from wiki-administrator whom I asked why I can't write/change pages anymore! In my case I call this what it is: censorship (if you also know what I had wrote lastly in bitcoin-wiki) -- and I dislike to work anymore for such folk who can't accept well-tested (I would call fair) wikipedia-policies for editing-disagreements, but judge their oppinion as the correct one, and the other as a "non-bitcoiner". :-(

BTW: This all should not be a topic to withdraw attention from my main-topic.

smtp

To prevent/reduce spam creating a new wiki account requires a Bitcoin donation before you can edit.  0.001? BTC IIRC.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BitcoinPayment

Wait, what? Pay to edit the wiki wtf are we talking about here?

I don't know you, but I can see why you're not working for the bitcoin-wiki anymore.

I know how it is defined. But regarding your "worthless" reply:

0) you guessed right, you are the "hero" who insists on technically terms, but principially the original posters (Monster Tent, Come-from-Beyond) had intuitively totally right.
But now to your current reply:
1) you did respond here
2) please compare your reply which i remembered with my sentence (and emphazised!) following the BTW. The differences are decisive.
3) please switch on your brain before commenting.

*) The last point is not meant to be rude. :-/

smtp

I was going to respond but then I realized there is absolutely nothing factual in the entire post.  What a waste of bits. 

Please read what a 51% attack entails.  No 51% attack occurred yesterday.

Hi

I think we discussed already about this topic about two month ago:

Bitcoin-system currently doesn't scale at all in time - which is very bad. :-(

If it would scale in time many issues will gone (this will even open another option not to be forced to  increase necessarily the block-size limits) and much more important: overall acceptance can grow.
With these arbitrary fixed time limits (borne from empirical implementation needs from a timeless idea/concept) in the source code, it (the current running bitcoin-system) is surely doomed to fail on the long run -- well, it serves (and has served!) for most miners as a profitable pyramid scheme. :-(

What this "BDB-0.7-accident" should tell everybody (it effectively proved) at least: the bitcoin-users depend very heavily on the mercy/decisions/arbitrariness of the bitcoin-miner community. This was surely not what Satoshi wanted, as long as this subcommunity is decreasing more and more in size (it is only a tiny fraction) compared to the overall bitcoin-user community. Fact is: Pieter Wuille had to revert his decision to propose to switch to 0.8 version for miners back into the total opposite to switch to 0.7 version for miners officially -- this looks (and it is!) like in politics: no rules, no respect of a "chief/leader"-developper's decision/proposal . :-(
This surely will not cast a good light on the current bitcoin-sytem, bitcoin-developper and bitcoin-miner community in the public for those who will reflect the facts.

And these two design flaws or surely not the only ones ... . It is only a question of time and acceptance when "BTC-2.0"(or whateever you like to call it)  which is incompatible to current BTC will show up, *IF* ever bitcoin-idea will survive, IMHO.

BTW: It remains me on another comment very recently stated: 'This was a 51%-attack of the bitcoin miners for the "good" of the network' - I think, people can guess which 'hero'-comment/reply I remember. Yes, this is called politics.

BTW2: For those who wonder why I didn't work in bitcoin-wiki anymore: I was classified as a "non-bitcoiner" (from a personal emailed statement from a chief-administrator, who also has other/further duties/interests in the bitcoin-world - I know his name since nearly 2 years) and thus must pay (regardless of my many previous work) to get write permission back (even on my own user page) -- sorry, write/correct/update yourself your bitcoin-wiki because you decided to arrange such a censorship.

smtp