Poll: Mike H. Interview - Convincing or not? - page 6.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 12:44:37 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 30, 2015, 12:42:07 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 11:48:24 AM

Thank god. Why do you think they're building all their blockchains for anyway?

Commercial success != Bitcoin success

Mostly everything corporations touch nowadays they break or turn to plastic shit.

Bitcoin is a prime quality luxury product and we expect it remains so.

lol omg I almost spit my coffee on my screen.

Bitcoin: the useless luxury blockchain! Cheesy

You must be kidding right?

I know the value of luxury items is hard for your small brain to comprehend but trust me, it works

Care to give me a single example of high cost luxury open code? Roll Eyes

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 30, 2015, 12:42:07 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 11:48:24 AM

Thank god. Why do you think they're building all their blockchains for anyway?

Commercial success != Bitcoin success

Mostly everything corporations touch nowadays they break or turn to plastic shit.

Bitcoin is a prime quality luxury product and we expect it remains so.

lol omg I almost spit my coffee on my screen.

Bitcoin: the useless luxury blockchain! Cheesy

You must be kidding right?

I know the value of luxury items is hard for your small brain to comprehend but trust me, it works

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 12:34:32 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 12:22:37 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 12:13:31 PM

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on September 30, 2015, 12:09:18 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 12:05:36 PM

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on September 30, 2015, 11:58:43 AM

I liked when the interviewer said that Romanians don't like XT, he completely doged that question with an unrelated answer. I guess that must be the reason he wasn't as radical when supporting his opinions about bitcoin there.

Also, when he started using bitcoin there weren't any fees? Even if that's remotely true, the fees exist for a reason. Why would anyone be in support of a developer looking to take fees away from bitcoin? The fee market exists to satisfy demand and supply, and it has been doing that well. This is the last reason the block size should be changed. Getting content in the blockchain shouldn't be worthless, it should rather be expensive when done in large quantities.

he never said he wanted to "take fees away from bitcoin"...

shouldn't the people who actually do the storing and processing determine how expensive it should be? if they have any business sense they will try to get fees at a level where 80%+ of TX are willing to pay the fee to perform the TX, any less the 80% and they're losing out on TX volume, and more then that and they aren't getting enough fee pre TX.

Might just be me, but the only assumption I can come to by hearing Mike being nostalgic of a bitcoin without fees is this. I believe the existing fee market is good to provide balance between both parties involved (miners, users). IMO a rapid change to the block size limit could destabilize that.

I agree with that, but at the same time, doing nothing keeping the 1MB limit and hitting it will also destabilize that balance, probably to much gr8er degree.

BIP100's "let the miners deal with it." makes alot of sense

Yes, it makes a lot of sense to let miners set the supply of a resource for which they don't bear the costs. Roll Eyes

No wonder you're a child of Quebec's failed education system.

they do bear the costs!
and also they benefit from full nodes, so they would weigh all that and come up with a goooooooooood number.
game theory 101.

No, they don't bear the costs. They can trivially minimize them by cooperating and in general technology will increasingly reduce them by making propagation more efficient.

Also, full nodes have no direct benefits from them. They could very well do their job with a dozen of super nodes only.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 11:48:24 AM

Quote from: knight22 on September 30, 2015, 11:42:05 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 11:27:57 AM

Quote from: manselr on September 30, 2015, 10:59:09 AM

Quote from: knight22 on September 30, 2015, 07:53:33 AM

Quote from: MicroGuy on September 30, 2015, 07:33:58 AM

He's still pushing BIP101 which is probably the worst idea since the invention of software. Gavin and Mike are insane to keep sticking with that concept of doubling the max block size every two years.

Increase max blocksize to 8MB and make the change static, that's the best solution. Then fork again in a few years as/if needed.

The limit should be lift off completely. The network has its own limitations and doesn't need an artificial one at all.

Wait are you saying that the blocksize should have no limit? It seems to me that you don't understand how this thing works at all. Are you aware of all the massive exploits the system could be exposed to if that was the case?

To put a more clear analogy, it was as if you went to a regular everyday car's motor and lifted the max revolutions to limitless. You know what's going to happen once you get past what the actual motor can deal with. This is the case with Bitcoin, thats why a blocksize limit exists at all.

Don't concern yourself with him. He lives in bizarro world and desires a corporate takeover of Bitcoin

Allowing corporates to use bitcoin != corporate takeover.

Corporates using bitcoin = commercial success
Corporates can't use bitcoin = http://saleshq.monster.com/news/articles/2655-the-20-worst-product-failures

Don't ask yourself why no businesses will use the bitcoin blockchain in the future.

Thank god. Why do you think they're building all their blockchains for anyway?

Commercial success != Bitcoin success

Mostly everything corporations touch nowadays they break or turn to plastic shit.

Bitcoin is a prime quality luxury product and we expect it remains so.

lol omg I almost spit my coffee on my screen.

Bitcoin: the useless luxury blockchain! Cheesy

You must be kidding right?

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 12:22:37 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 12:13:31 PM

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on September 30, 2015, 12:09:18 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 12:05:36 PM

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on September 30, 2015, 11:58:43 AM

I liked when the interviewer said that Romanians don't like XT, he completely doged that question with an unrelated answer. I guess that must be the reason he wasn't as radical when supporting his opinions about bitcoin there.

Also, when he started using bitcoin there weren't any fees? Even if that's remotely true, the fees exist for a reason. Why would anyone be in support of a developer looking to take fees away from bitcoin? The fee market exists to satisfy demand and supply, and it has been doing that well. This is the last reason the block size should be changed. Getting content in the blockchain shouldn't be worthless, it should rather be expensive when done in large quantities.

he never said he wanted to "take fees away from bitcoin"...

shouldn't the people who actually do the storing and processing determine how expensive it should be? if they have any business sense they will try to get fees at a level where 80%+ of TX are willing to pay the fee to perform the TX, any less the 80% and they're losing out on TX volume, and more then that and they aren't getting enough fee pre TX.

Might just be me, but the only assumption I can come to by hearing Mike being nostalgic of a bitcoin without fees is this. I believe the existing fee market is good to provide balance between both parties involved (miners, users). IMO a rapid change to the block size limit could destabilize that.

I agree with that, but at the same time, doing nothing keeping the 1MB limit and hitting it will also destabilize that balance, probably to much gr8er degree.

BIP100's "let the miners deal with it." makes alot of sense

Yes, it makes a lot of sense to let miners set the supply of a resource for which they don't bear the costs. Roll Eyes

No wonder you're a child of Quebec's failed education system.

they do bear the costs!
and also they benefit from full nodes, so they would weigh all that and come up with a goooooooooood number.
game theory 101.

lets not forget that for the longest time minner imposed their own limit which was lower than the block limit and increase it with usage, they have therefor already demonstrated that they understand the importance of keeping a limit

furthermore, having miners set a limit which will maximize total fees collected will ensure more profits for minners and add more incentive for more hashing power.
BoYa Baby
BIP101 is the way to goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 12:13:31 PM

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on September 30, 2015, 12:09:18 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 12:05:36 PM

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on September 30, 2015, 11:58:43 AM

I liked when the interviewer said that Romanians don't like XT, he completely doged that question with an unrelated answer. I guess that must be the reason he wasn't as radical when supporting his opinions about bitcoin there.

Also, when he started using bitcoin there weren't any fees? Even if that's remotely true, the fees exist for a reason. Why would anyone be in support of a developer looking to take fees away from bitcoin? The fee market exists to satisfy demand and supply, and it has been doing that well. This is the last reason the block size should be changed. Getting content in the blockchain shouldn't be worthless, it should rather be expensive when done in large quantities.

he never said he wanted to "take fees away from bitcoin"...

shouldn't the people who actually do the storing and processing determine how expensive it should be? if they have any business sense they will try to get fees at a level where 80%+ of TX are willing to pay the fee to perform the TX, any less the 80% and they're losing out on TX volume, and more then that and they aren't getting enough fee pre TX.

Might just be me, but the only assumption I can come to by hearing Mike being nostalgic of a bitcoin without fees is this. I believe the existing fee market is good to provide balance between both parties involved (miners, users). IMO a rapid change to the block size limit could destabilize that.

I agree with that, but at the same time, doing nothing keeping the 1MB limit and hitting it will also destabilize that balance, probably to much gr8er degree.

BIP100's "let the miners deal with it." makes alot of sense

Yes, it makes a lot of sense to let miners set the supply of a resource for which they don't bear the costs. Roll Eyes

No wonder you're a child of Quebec's failed education system.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on September 30, 2015, 12:09:18 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 12:05:36 PM

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on September 30, 2015, 11:58:43 AM

I liked when the interviewer said that Romanians don't like XT, he completely doged that question with an unrelated answer. I guess that must be the reason he wasn't as radical when supporting his opinions about bitcoin there.

Also, when he started using bitcoin there weren't any fees? Even if that's remotely true, the fees exist for a reason. Why would anyone be in support of a developer looking to take fees away from bitcoin? The fee market exists to satisfy demand and supply, and it has been doing that well. This is the last reason the block size should be changed. Getting content in the blockchain shouldn't be worthless, it should rather be expensive when done in large quantities.

he never said he wanted to "take fees away from bitcoin"...

shouldn't the people who actually do the storing and processing determine how expensive it should be? if they have any business sense they will try to get fees at a level where 80%+ of TX are willing to pay the fee to perform the TX, any less the 80% and they're losing out on TX volume, and more then that and they aren't getting enough fee pre TX.

Might just be me, but the only assumption I can come to by hearing Mike being nostalgic of a bitcoin without fees is this. I believe the existing fee market is good to provide balance between both parties involved (miners, users). IMO a rapid change to the block size limit could destabilize that.

I agree with that, but at the same time, doing nothing keeping the 1MB limit and hitting it will also destabilize that balance, probably to much gr8er degree.

BIP100's "let the miners deal with it." makes alot of sense

foreveryoung

full member

Activity: 144

Merit: 100

Does Mike Hearn act like he trying to weaken Bitcoin on purpose or does he do it naturally?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 11:58:04 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 11:52:22 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 11:54:36 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 11:52:22 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 11:32:25 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 30, 2015, 11:24:09 AM

A fee market exists with no block cap. Peter R explained why at the scalability conference.

Peter R's theory does not apply in practice so it is irrelevant to discuss it.

Moreover he readily admits it does not hold absent of block subsidy.

just because it doesn't jive with your cock eyed theory that low TPS with high fees is good for bitcoin. doesn't mean it Peter R's theory does not apply in practice.

hes sure what it would so with no block subsidy, my guess is the theory hodls true, because miners still stand to potentially lose out on a lot of fees should there block with (even with 0 subsidy) be orphaned, but the model to calculate SupplyVsDemand needs to be changed a bit i guess.

Couldn't be bothered to read you boring comment but let me state again: dynamics currently observed in the network clearly demonstrate that Peter R's assumptions are wrong and therefore his theory does not apply.

right true he forgot to take into account no one would want to use bitcoin if it sucked, due to self imposed limitations

I guess you were trying to be funny but just as a FYI what he obviously ignores is this : miners cooperation ie. centralization.

worhiper_-_

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 12:05:36 PM

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on September 30, 2015, 11:58:43 AM

I liked when the interviewer said that Romanians don't like XT, he completely doged that question with an unrelated answer. I guess that must be the reason he wasn't as radical when supporting his opinions about bitcoin there.

Also, when he started using bitcoin there weren't any fees? Even if that's remotely true, the fees exist for a reason. Why would anyone be in support of a developer looking to take fees away from bitcoin? The fee market exists to satisfy demand and supply, and it has been doing that well. This is the last reason the block size should be changed. Getting content in the blockchain shouldn't be worthless, it should rather be expensive when done in large quantities.

he never said he wanted to "take fees away from bitcoin"...

shouldn't the people who actually do the storing and processing determine how expensive it should be? if they have any business sense they will try to get fees at a level where 80%+ of TX are willing to pay the fee to perform the TX, any less the 80% and they're losing out on TX volume, and more then that and they aren't getting enough fee pre TX.

Might just be me, but the only assumption I can come to by hearing Mike being nostalgic of a bitcoin without fees is this. I believe the existing fee market is good to provide balance between both parties involved (miners, users). IMO a rapid change to the block size limit could destabilize that.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on September 30, 2015, 11:58:43 AM

I liked when the interviewer said that Romanians don't like XT, he completely doged that question with an unrelated answer. I guess that must be the reason he wasn't as radical when supporting his opinions about bitcoin there.

Also, when he started using bitcoin there weren't any fees? Even if that's remotely true, the fees exist for a reason. Why would anyone be in support of a developer looking to take fees away from bitcoin? The fee market exists to satisfy demand and supply, and it has been doing that well. This is the last reason the block size should be changed. Getting content in the blockchain shouldn't be worthless, it should rather be expensive when done in large quantities.

he never said he wanted to "take fees away from bitcoin"...

shouldn't the people who actually do the storing and processing determine how expensive it should be? if they have any business sense they will try to get fees at a level where 80%+ of TX are willing to pay the fee to perform the TX, any less the 80% and they're losing out on TX volume, and more then that and they aren't getting enough fee pre TX.

Quote from: maokoto on September 30, 2015, 12:00:44 PM

It surprised me to read he would agree to BIP 100 if everyone agrees.

That sounds as good intentions at least.

BIP100 is meh... but ya bacily BitcoinXT will follow whatever Core does because they simply don't have enough support to change the current dev power structure

maokoto

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

✪ NEXCHANGE | BTC, LTC, ETH & DOGE ✪

It surprised me to read he would agree to BIP 100 if everyone agrees.

That sounds as good intentions at least.

worhiper_-_

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

I liked when the interviewer said that Romanians don't like XT, he completely doged that question with an unrelated answer. I guess that must be the reason he wasn't as radical when supporting his opinions about bitcoin there.

Also, when he started using bitcoin there weren't any fees? Even if that's remotely true, the fees exist for a reason. Why would anyone be in support of a developer looking to take fees away from bitcoin? The fee market exists to satisfy demand and supply, and it has been doing that well. This is the last reason the block size should be changed. Getting content in the blockchain shouldn't be worthless, it should rather be expensive when done in large quantities.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 11:52:22 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 11:54:36 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 11:52:22 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 11:32:25 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 30, 2015, 11:24:09 AM

A fee market exists with no block cap. Peter R explained why at the scalability conference.

Peter R's theory does not apply in practice so it is irrelevant to discuss it.

Moreover he readily admits it does not hold absent of block subsidy.

just because it doesn't jive with your cock eyed theory that low TPS with high fees is good for bitcoin. doesn't mean it Peter R's theory does not apply in practice.

hes sure what it would so with no block subsidy, my guess is the theory hodls true, because miners still stand to potentially lose out on a lot of fees should there block with (even with 0 subsidy) be orphaned, but the model to calculate SupplyVsDemand needs to be changed a bit i guess.

Couldn't be bothered to read you boring comment but let me state again: dynamics currently observed in the network clearly demonstrate that Peter R's assumptions are wrong and therefore his theory does not apply.

right true he forgot to take into account no one would want to use bitcoin if it sucked, due to self imposed limitations

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 11:52:22 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 11:32:25 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 30, 2015, 11:24:09 AM

A fee market exists with no block cap. Peter R explained why at the scalability conference.

Peter R's theory does not apply in practice so it is irrelevant to discuss it.

Moreover he readily admits it does not hold absent of block subsidy.

just because it doesn't jive with your cock eyed theory that low TPS with high fees is good for bitcoin. doesn't mean it Peter R's theory does not apply in practice.

hes sure what it would so with no block subsidy, my guess is the theory hodls true, because miners still stand to potentially lose out on a lot of fees should there block with (even with 0 subsidy) be orphaned, but the model to calculate SupplyVsDemand needs to be changed a bit i guess.
[/quote]

Couldn't be bothered to read you boring comment but let me state again: dynamics currently observed in the network clearly demonstrate that Peter R's assumptions are wrong and therefore his theory does not apply.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 11:32:25 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 30, 2015, 11:24:09 AM

A fee market exists with no block cap. Peter R explained why at the scalability conference.

Peter R's theory does not apply in practice so it is irrelevant to discuss it.

Moreover he readily admits it does not hold absent of block subsidy.

[/quote]

just because it doesn't jive with your cock eyed theory that low TPS with high fees is good for bitcoin. doesn't mean it Peter R's theory does not apply in practice.

hes sure what it would so with no block subsidy, my guess is the theory hodls true, because miners still stand to potentially lose out on a lot of fees should there block with (even with 0 subsidy) be orphaned, but the model to calculate SupplyVsDemand needs to be changed a bit i guess.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 30, 2015, 11:42:05 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 11:27:57 AM

Quote from: manselr on September 30, 2015, 10:59:09 AM

Quote from: knight22 on September 30, 2015, 07:53:33 AM

Quote from: MicroGuy on September 30, 2015, 07:33:58 AM

He's still pushing BIP101 which is probably the worst idea since the invention of software. Gavin and Mike are insane to keep sticking with that concept of doubling the max block size every two years.

Increase max blocksize to 8MB and make the change static, that's the best solution. Then fork again in a few years as/if needed.

The limit should be lift off completely. The network has its own limitations and doesn't need an artificial one at all.

Wait are you saying that the blocksize should have no limit? It seems to me that you don't understand how this thing works at all. Are you aware of all the massive exploits the system could be exposed to if that was the case?

To put a more clear analogy, it was as if you went to a regular everyday car's motor and lifted the max revolutions to limitless. You know what's going to happen once you get past what the actual motor can deal with. This is the case with Bitcoin, thats why a blocksize limit exists at all.

Don't concern yourself with him. He lives in bizarro world and desires a corporate takeover of Bitcoin

Allowing corporates to use bitcoin != corporate takeover.

Corporates using bitcoin = commercial success
Corporates can't use bitcoin = http://saleshq.monster.com/news/articles/2655-the-20-worst-product-failures

Don't ask yourself why no businesses will use the bitcoin blockchain in the future.

Thank god. Why do you think they're building all their blockchains for anyway?

Commercial success != Bitcoin success

Mostly everything corporations touch nowadays they break or turn to plastic shit.

Bitcoin is a prime quality luxury product and we expect it remains so.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 11:27:57 AM

Quote from: manselr on September 30, 2015, 10:59:09 AM

Quote from: knight22 on September 30, 2015, 07:53:33 AM

Quote from: MicroGuy on September 30, 2015, 07:33:58 AM

He's still pushing BIP101 which is probably the worst idea since the invention of software. Gavin and Mike are insane to keep sticking with that concept of doubling the max block size every two years.

Increase max blocksize to 8MB and make the change static, that's the best solution. Then fork again in a few years as/if needed.

The limit should be lift off completely. The network has its own limitations and doesn't need an artificial one at all.

Wait are you saying that the blocksize should have no limit? It seems to me that you don't understand how this thing works at all. Are you aware of all the massive exploits the system could be exposed to if that was the case?

To put a more clear analogy, it was as if you went to a regular everyday car's motor and lifted the max revolutions to limitless. You know what's going to happen once you get past what the actual motor can deal with. This is the case with Bitcoin, thats why a blocksize limit exists at all.

Don't concern yourself with him. He lives in bizarro world and desires a corporate takeover of Bitcoin

Allowing corporates to use bitcoin != corporate takeover.

Corporates using bitcoin = commercial success
Corporates can't use bitcoin = http://saleshq.monster.com/news/articles/2655-the-20-worst-product-failures

Don't ask yourself why no businesses will use the bitcoin blockchain in the future.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on September 30, 2015, 11:36:53 AM

Quote from: manselr on September 30, 2015, 10:59:09 AM

Quote from: knight22 on September 30, 2015, 07:53:33 AM

Quote from: MicroGuy on September 30, 2015, 07:33:58 AM

He's still pushing BIP101 which is probably the worst idea since the invention of software. Gavin and Mike are insane to keep sticking with that concept of doubling the max block size every two years.

Increase max blocksize to 8MB and make the change static, that's the best solution. Then fork again in a few years as/if needed.

The limit should be lift off completely. The network has its own limitations and doesn't need an artificial one at all.

Wait are you saying that the blocksize should have no limit? It seems to me that you don't understand how this thing works at all. Are you aware of all the massive exploits the system could be exposed to if that was the case?

To put a more clear analogy, it was as if you went to a regular everyday car's motor and lifted the max revolutions to limitless. You know what's going to happen once you get past what the actual motor can deal with. This is the case with Bitcoin, thats why a blocksize limit exists at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad0Pjj_ms2k

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 11:32:25 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 30, 2015, 11:24:09 AM

A fee market exists with no block cap. Peter R explained why at the scalability conference.

Peter R's theory does not apply in practice so it is irrelevant to discuss it.

Moreover he readily admits it does not hold absent of block subsidy.

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

Quote from: manselr on September 30, 2015, 10:59:09 AM

Quote from: knight22 on September 30, 2015, 07:53:33 AM

Quote from: MicroGuy on September 30, 2015, 07:33:58 AM

He's still pushing BIP101 which is probably the worst idea since the invention of software. Gavin and Mike are insane to keep sticking with that concept of doubling the max block size every two years.

Increase max blocksize to 8MB and make the change static, that's the best solution. Then fork again in a few years as/if needed.

The limit should be lift off completely. The network has its own limitations and doesn't need an artificial one at all.

Wait are you saying that the blocksize should have no limit? It seems to me that you don't understand how this thing works at all. Are you aware of all the massive exploits the system could be exposed to if that was the case?

To put a more clear analogy, it was as if you went to a regular everyday car's motor and lifted the max revolutions to limitless. You know what's going to happen once you get past what the actual motor can deal with. This is the case with Bitcoin, thats why a blocksize limit exists at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad0Pjj_ms2k

Topic: Poll: Mike H. Interview - Convincing or not? - page 6. (Read 4958 times)