Topic: The hardfork will make Gavincoin plummet to zero - page 3. (Read 11296 times)

What i dont understant is the certainty that both coins/forks are gonna live. If lets say 80% of all Hashingpower switch to the new Fork the old work will get stuck at a very high difficulty so transactions will take 100 minutes. This will cause more miners to switch until the fork is practically death/useless.

And i think if a fork will ever happen it will be made sure that at least 80% of the miners are behind this decision.

How is limiting the amount of a single block beneficial for the coin? You could also go for a coin with lower block-rates. This all just doesn't make any sense. Limiting the block-size is just arbitrarily crippling the flexibility of Bitcoin.

I don't see what the big deal is. We have hard forked before and it was a non-event, despite all the dire prediction then also. 

Sometimes communities need a genius leader to re-order it and put some common sense on it. Im pretty sure Satoshi's words would be common sense.

maybe he already did 

It could be $0 one day, but then again, it could be $10,000
Anyways I expect it to last at least 10 years at minimum, but who knows. Satoshi is still out there right? If he ever creates "Bitcoin 2.0" I'll jump the boat for the founder.

That's the problem, he would have too much power. I think that would only cause more problems. He's long gone, we will have to sort it out ourselves.

Isn't it time for satoshi to come back and bring some consensus?
I would like to hear his views on the current state of things.
Maybe if he says "guys its time to fork 20" there will be a consensus and people will be reasonable.

I agree.

I'm imagining an epic shitstorm when there is 100 different forks of the original Bitcoin, all claiming to be the one and only true to the holy satoshi, all incompatible to each other. People would even trade them against each other and there is a race to decimate the competition by dumping as many pre-fork coins as possible.
Probably won't happen, but is the thought that counts.

If Gavin doesn't update the bitcoin core with a more realistic block cap size, then you can sure someone else will.

If the TX fees get too high, perhaps we should ask the FED for a subsidy. 

YES, currently, you would have to pay a lot of fees to store a single photo.

I AM AGAINST btc blockchain being used to store x megabytes per .0001 btc miner fee.  this would devalue btc by giving access to the huge miners network for outsiders to profit at the expense of the btc miner.

i remember in the beginning of 2014 there were arguments from software developers that the bitcoin transaction size limits were hindering them from using the blockchain for their own non btc projects.

they must have gotten their way as i'm assuming with an increase in block size the transaction size will also be lifted giving them what they have been pushing the foundation to do for months in their greed.

if the block size is raised but the tx size is the same or smaller.  i think that will keep our resources btc related.  

i'm all for making btc useful in the future.

Lets go back to BCwinnings question first of all. "Why 20? why not 40 60 80 or 100?"

It's a great question, if the decision had been made to increase the block size to 20MB and "put a fork in it" so to speak If that's the case you are going to have to cite some reference.

Whether or not *you* think that Gavin testing 20mb block size implies it is one thing. Whether or not you read some of the prior discussion about 20MB being the first increase in a series that would be coded into the protocol over time is another thing. Whether or not you are reading media hyperbole and accepting it as fact, thats yet another thing.

So - no change has been proposed yet, and certainly nothing has been agreed, and BCwinning's summation of that is "it's Gavins way or the highway"...?

Thats one level of ignorance.

Reading some dude's misinformed opinion on BTC about whats going on. Not bothering to check then extrapolating. Thats a whole other level.

Lets be clear if you are a drama junkie you'll find all sorts of crap you can glom onto in the world of BTC. Meanwhile everyone else will just plod on with the boring truth.

When eventually the core devs have thrashed this out, and when an actual BIP is in place, at least then you can whine about it.

Your protests are going to look even more petulant then though, because if its become a BIP then its likely that the majority of devs are on board.

If the majority of devs are on board, its probably going to happen. Then the majority of users will upgrade, then any pathetic attempt to fork the blockchain will be seen for exactly what it is. This proposed change is intended to benefit  *everyone*.

The one person who has made an actual argument against it, has done so from the position of it benefiting the few.

Everyone else against is arguing from ignorance, because not one of them have yet explained what the benefit is of *not* increasing the block size.

This is easily the biggest problem I have with the foundation and the direction they are taking Bitcoin in. Between Gavin as lead dev, and Brock Pierce on the board, Bitcoin is in for some dark days.

You are a classic example of "I can't imagine that X is possible, therefore X is not possible".

If there is a good reason why all transactions can't happen on chain, i've yet to hear it. They don't *have* to, sure. But they *could* despite your immense short sightedness.

Lets see. 1 billion transactions a day, at let say the equivalent of $0.0001 per transaction meaning the equivalent of $100,000 in fees *per block* and 2.8GB a day is a problem?

You also assume that in the time it takes to go from the current volume of 100k transactions per day to 3 billion, we never implement IBLT? Oh the horror, another proposal from Gavin Andreson  anyone would think he was one of the lead core devs or something!

If you don't like the 20meg block size because you prefer the idea of side chains thats fair enough. At least be honest about it.