You have posted a lot that you don't want gavin's update but you haven't actually posted why.
All you have done is repeatedly assured us that if the update goes in then MP will try to fork the blockchain.
I know why MP doesn't want the change, he's made it perfectly clear. I don't agree with him, but it's his opinion so I respect that. We just want different things out of bitcoin.
Why don't you actually want the change? Hint: "Because it will fork the blockchain" isn't an answer, its at best FUD at worst a threat.
you loose me the moment you fix a system that isn't broken without consensus on it ahead of actual demand
the 'innovation' is causing chaos and being wasteful with HD recources of users
it's no innovation at all
i don't see me downloading 2.8GB every day just to sync up - and i know almost nobody will do that, that's why gavincoin will be the loosing fork (that was the basic point of the thread)
Let them do it, sit back relax and watch it go down the slippery slope over the decade.
Perhaps long after reversible transactions, inflation/deflation according to economic factors and a more sane transaction storage practice are in it finally becomes a usable payment system one can call a currency. Nobody except the victims of the pump & dump will shed a tear about the fixed coin supply if there is real economic growth.
interesting approach
What you describe there is certainly not the bitcoin people sign up for today though.
But i'll probably personally really take the approach of sitting back and relaxing. Speculating on alts just became a lot more rational.
I'm pretty confident the original Bitcoin chain will live on for decades though.
Here i the thing: Nobody required them to to sign up for anything, not satoshi, gavin, the bitcoin foundation or mark karpeles.
And it does matter what people decide to be Bitcoin in the future, innovations don't happen inevitably. It happens only if a majority of the people realize they need it and if the people who have the necessary skills to innovate decide to work together.
correct
You keep doing this thing where you argue one thing, but then use the opposite premise to argue another thing. You seem really confused.
On the one hand you keep saying that we are nowhere near 1MB blocks yet, so why do the change?
On the other hand you keep saying that if we do the change that you don't want to download 2.8GB a day (which is every block maxed out at ~20MB)
20MB blocks aren't suddenly going to fill up, despite your wild assertions they suddenly will. As you have already said the 1MB blocks aren't being used. So your data usage isn't going to spike suddenly.
Then there are the next round of updates, the ones that actually reduce bandwidth usage and initial blockchain download times. Pretty compelling reasons to upgrade. Which means that by the time we actually need >1MB blocks, the majority (not everyone, you were right) will have upgraded.
Theres a subtle difference between consensus and majority. what is happening is that it is being discussed now so that in can be implemented in good time to make sure that all of the bad things you say might happen won't.
The way consensus is reached in the blockchain is that first a majority of nodes agree, then anyone that didn't agree is financially incentivised to go with the longer chain and so discards there shorter chain. Thus consensus is reached.
Thats what will happen with this update. Provided the majority agree, the change will go in. At which point you are free to refuse to upgrade. By the time it actually becomes necessary to mine >1MB blocks the majority will have upgraded.
So the MP blockchain fork can go right ahead for as long as it likes until those involved realise they'd be better off mining *actual* bitcoin, like the majority. Then consensus will once again be reached.
