It's funny where this debate's got to, eh Franky? Because now, all you and your friends VeritasCrapere can do is make statements that are easily demonstrated to be the entire opposite of the facts, like true PR men or your friendly neighbourhood politician (to wit, every statement in the above post is the simple opposite of the actual facts). Your bad spelling and bloke-ishness are as guileless as your accusations of Bitcoin Core shills.
You're the people (you in particular, Franky) who've got what seems like 24 hours a day to talk about various ways of deposing the Core dev team ad infintum. So come on now. Fuck off with your bullshit.
Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 88. (Read 157162 times)
In a way I agree with him. So, if devs and big companies in the space can decide to change the core code won't that be the same as central banks control over currency?
No. They can't force their code to the participants of the network. It also has to have great support from the miners who obviously won't risk changes without consensus. This is not really comparable to 'control over a currency'. 
In a way I agree with him. So, if devs and big companies in the space can decide to change the core code won't that be the same as central banks control over currency?
Nobody knows that and we do not need to know that, if adoption does outpace technological limits then off chain solutions will most likely be what most people will use or that traffic will just move to other cryptocurrencies as well, I would be satisfied with such an outcome, we would most likely end up with a slightly larger blocksize that would still most likely increase over time. We could maybe find agreement here?
I concur, nobody knows this. However, the current trend suggest a possible slowdown when it comes to technology improvement (unless we move on from the current materials).The problem it seems is that you will not even allow for that possibility to happen, from my perspective to allow the market to make this choice. Maybe from your perspective we could say that we only increase the blocksize as much as technological limits will allow, if you presume that such increases will be no where near enough to satisfy the demand in transactions. Whereas I might be more optimistic about the future, it does allow for a situation that maybe we could both agree with? The reality will be revealed to us as time progresses. Allowing for the possibility of both visions to come to fruition depending on both the choices of the market, the rate of technological progress and the speed of adoption.
See this is where it does not make more sense to me. You want more capacity on the block chain -> Core offers Segwit as an alternative instead of 2 MB blocks (more are not feasible right now). In the meantime there are other people developing second layer solutions. These people are not necessarily Core contributors. So where is this assumption coming from that Core is trying to prevent a decision? I'm certain that after Segwit, IBLT and weak blocks there is a chance of 3-4 MB blocks to be safe (albeit calculations have to be re-done with Segwit to gather new data).However I think that in the way that I have described here both visions can actually live side by side if both sides are willing to compromise a small amount, we can avoid a split. I think two megabytes does represent this compromise. Can you see the logic in this, can you see how this understanding could be an amicable solution to the blocksize debate?
Segwit now -> block size limit increase in 2017. That's also a sort of compromise is it not?I suppose I would like to see these principles continued to be expressed on the Bitcoin blockchain directly.
But second layer solutions do not damage these principles at all. Even if the majority of transactions are happening on the second layer, the first layer will continue to function with all those fundamentals intact (I hope).However I would like to respond with what I said earlier in this post, it is true that we both do not have the data to back up any future scenario either worst case or best case. Maybe which is why keeping the possibility open for both visions going into the future might be the more flexible and wise course of action.
Technically, yes. We don't have any concrete data. We do not have concrete data on what is going to happen with the node count if we scale only via the block size limit. However, I think that you fail to realize (most do) that a lot of bad people stand to lose a lot because of Bitcoin. Due to this, they will try everything in their power to discredit, damage, destroy it. This is why we have to prepare for worst-case scenarios.I really do think I might be on to something with this understanding. If you can agree with me on this point, compromise slightly as I am doing as well, then we could actually have an amicable solution to this blocksize debate. Who knows this could even represent real progress in our discussions. What do you think, do my thoughts regarding this understanding have some merit?
Well it your last few posts seem to be more reasonable the usual. I do agree. This is far better then the people on r/btc finding ways of attacking just about anyone and anything that does not agree with their views. iCEBREAKER what is this I thought we were done with the noise pollution!? Let's not feed the VerbalSatire please!
The last few posts seem decent. There is no 'cheering' and pointless 'propaganda'. Still way better than certain people that I have put on ignore due to their idiocy. 
If you do plan on deleting my posts iCEBREAKER. Please just let me know and I will stop posting on this thread instead. In other words just ask me to leave and I will, I prefer that over being censored. I was hoping that you had a stronger stomach for freedom of speech though. 
iCEBREAKER what is this I thought we were done with the noise pollution!? Let's not feed the VerbalSatire please!
Fair enough, let me restate what I said, I think Block Stream has to much influence over Bitcoin.
My eyes can't believe what they see: a 'forker' stating that they are wrong. This is a rare event.You do not know how to reason, you are just completely ignoring my argument that we can scale Bitcoin directly according to the technological limits of today and that adoption might not necessarily outpace technological progress. Especially considering that I am not against LN and other off chain solutions to relieve some of the pressure off the main chain.
Why should I focus on it when I'm focusing on things that you've said in the past discussions that we've had? Don't change your statement on the go. Do you have data to back up that the technological limits will not be outpaced by adoption?The problem it seems is that you will not even allow for that possibility to happen, from my perspective to allow the market to make this choice. Maybe from your perspective we could say that we only increase the blocksize as much as technological limits will allow, if you presume that such increases will be no where near enough to satisfy the demand in transactions. Whereas I might be more optimistic about the future, it does allow for a situation that maybe we could both agree with? The reality will be revealed to us as time progresses. Allowing for the possibility of both visions to come to fruition depending on both the choices of the market, the rate of technological progress and the speed of adoption.
I suppose the problem that I have is that by restricting the blocksize in this way narrowly focusing on one vision it actually excludes the possibility of the other vision, which if successful I think will just be expressed in a chain fork or altcoin, if proven to be superior. However I think that in the way that I have described here both visions can actually live side by side if both sides are willing to compromise a small amount, we can avoid a split. I think two megabytes does represent this compromise. Can you see the logic in this, can you see how this understanding could be an amicable solution to the blocksize debate?
For you to say that I do not know how to use fallacies already implies that you do not know what logical fallacies are. You claim to be a technical expert, I claim to be an expert in philosophy, epistemology and logical fallacies are in the realm of my expertise.
I did not know that (albeit you are to forgive the suspicion that these claims are lies ('expert in X, Y, Z') due to the situation that the ecosystem is in).If you do not care how Satoshi envisioned scaling then you can not say that you care for the fundamentals for which Bitcoin stands unless these principles are now defined by Core? This obviously does depend on what you think the fundamentals for Bitcoin are, which I do not think we actually disagree over to fundamentally at least, I think we disagree more over how to get there.
I've stated in my previous post what the the primary fundamentals are: decentralization, censorship-resistance, low cost - near instant transactions. There are probably more, but I'm too tired to put in more thought into this. I do not care which implementation achieves the following, as long as they are working towards itI think that increasing the blocksize is what would maximize financial freedom and decentralization. More specifically increasing the blocksize is also what would lead it to being the most censorship resistant, low cost and decentralized method of transferring value.
You don't have the data to back this up. That is one of the main problems here. You are looking at the 'best case scenario' and engineers are trying to create a system that would survive the 'worst case scenarios'. The only thing that we know for sure is that the requirements for more resources will lead to fewer nodes. However, it is not as simple as this. More users could also mean more nodes. This is why we need research, testing and data. Data which we currently do not have.I really do think I might be on to something with this understanding. If you can agree with me on this point, compromise slightly as I am doing as well, then we could actually have an amicable solution to this blocksize debate. Who knows this could even represent real progress in our discussions. What do you think, do my thoughts regarding this understanding have some merit?
You should try and counter what I have to say with actual arguments instead of just insulting me and using ad hominem. It is also false to simply say price is going up therefore what you are saying and what Core is doing is right. The markets are more complex then that. It is true I favor simplicity in design but that does not mean I am a simpleton. You seem like a good writer, I would engage with you if you actually made any real arguments, try and use your skill at writing in pursuits of reason instead of appeals to emotion.
Your position is that a HF by the Classic team is preferable to a SF by the Core team, is it not?
One doesn't even need to get into the various technical reasons why this is a foolish position, the risk-reward alone makes it an obvious call. In the worst case of SegWit leading to unexpected problems, those who upgraded can simply roll back. There's no rolling back the damage from a contentious HF, that would be a long and painful process in which altcoins are liable to overtake Bitcoin. This is why certain altcoins are invested in promoting just such an occurence.
I am certain that if we do not scale Bitcoin directly altcoins and chain forks of Bitcoin will overtake it. It is simple economics really, Bitcoin needs to be able to compete.If you can't acknowledge the simple reality that Classic has failed due it being a less credible, useful and valuable plan than Bitcoin's roadmap, there seems little point in further engagement.
I do not think classic has failed, it is about the freedom of choice, and the Core node count is steadily dwindling I would call that progress.The market has spoken unequivocally and you're only wasting your time by arguing with it and people in this thread.
People that think discussion is a waste of time are often not right, considering they are not allowing their beliefs to be tested, and are not contributing to the market place of ideas.If you're so convinced Bitcoin is on the wrong path, then like I say, present a better alternative. If it's truly better, it will be adopted.
A better alternative already exists, Satoshi Nakamoto already had a solution to scaling, which is to increase the blocksize. Even back then Satoshi had its critics to this method of scaling to which he replied.https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6306
Fair enough, let me restate what I said, I think Block Stream has to much influence over Bitcoin.
My eyes can't believe what they see: a 'forker' stating that they are wrong. This is a rare event. I find it ridiculous that you are even trying to argue that it is simpler implementing Segwit compared to a blocksize increase.
I never stated such. All I said that soft forks are simpler to implement and activate than hard forks. You do not know how to reason, you are just completely ignoring my argument that we can scale Bitcoin directly according to the technological limits of today and that adoption might not necessarily outpace technological progress. Especially considering that I am not against LN and other off chain solutions to relieve some of the pressure off the main chain.
Why should I focus on it when I'm focusing on things that you've said in the past discussions that we've had? Don't change your statement on the go. Do you have data to back up that the technological limits will not be outpaced by adoption?For you to say that I do not know how to use fallacies already implies that you do not know what logical fallacies are. You claim to be a technical expert, I claim to be an expert in philosophy, epistemology and logical fallacies are in the realm of my expertise.
I did not know that (albeit you are to forgive the suspicion that these claims are lies ('expert in X, Y, Z') due to the situation that the ecosystem is in).If you do not care how Satoshi envisioned scaling then you can not say that you care for the fundamentals for which Bitcoin stands unless these principles are now defined by Core? This obviously does depend on what you think the fundamentals for Bitcoin are, which I do not think we actually disagree over to fundamentally at least, I think we disagree more over how to get there.
I've stated in my previous post what the the primary fundamentals are: decentralization, censorship-resistance, low cost - near instant transactions. There are probably more, but I'm too tired to put in more thought into this. I do not care which implementation achieves the following, as long as they are working towards itI think that increasing the blocksize is what would maximize financial freedom and decentralization. More specifically increasing the blocksize is also what would lead it to being the most censorship resistant, low cost and decentralized method of transferring value.
You don't have the data to back this up. That is one of the main problems here. You are looking at the 'best case scenario' and engineers are trying to create a system that would survive the 'worst case scenarios'. The only thing that we know for sure is that the requirements for more resources will lead to fewer nodes. However, it is not as simple as this. More users could also mean more nodes. This is why we need research, testing and data. Data which we currently do not have. 
You should try and counter what I have to say with actual arguments instead of just insulting me and using ad hominem. It is also false to simply say price is going up therefore what you are saying and what Core is doing is right. The markets are more complex then that. It is true I favor simplicity in design but that does not mean I am a simpleton. You seem like a good writer, I would engage with you if you actually made any real arguments, try and use your skill at writing in pursuits of reason instead of appeals to emotion.
Your position is that a HF by the Classic team is preferable to a SF by the Core team, is it not? One doesn't even need to get into the various technical reasons why this is a foolish position, the risk-reward alone makes it an obvious call. In the worst case of SegWit leading to unexpected problems, those who upgraded can simply roll back. There's no rolling back the damage from a contentious HF, that would be a long and painful process in which altcoins are liable to overtake Bitcoin. This is why certain altcoins are invested in promoting just such an occurence.
If you can't acknowledge the simple reality that Classic has failed due it being a less credible, useful and valuable plan than Bitcoin's roadmap, there seems little point in further engagement. The market has spoken unequivocally and you're only wasting your time by arguing with it and people in this thread. If you're so convinced Bitcoin is on the wrong path, then like I say, present a better alternative. If it's truly better, it will be adopted.
Two megabytes is obviously a compromise, something Core could learn from. Your statements are astounding, increasing the blocksize is a single line of code, Segwit represents thousands of lines of code. Which the miners have recently said they will not adopt without a hard fork. It is true that I want to see development distributed and I am uncomfortable with the idea that Block Stream has so much control over Bitcoin, I consider it to be antithetical to its original vision.
A HF is not a single line of code. Deploying a HF is much harder than deploying a SF. I'd like to see the statements of the miners that confirm your argument. Blockstream does not have control over the development, Github and open source projects do not work like that. They might have influence, but this is completely different from control.I find it ridiculous that you are even trying to argue that it is simpler implementing Segwit compared to a blocksize increase. You should know that even a blocksize increase or an increase in the supply of Bitcoin can be implemented using a soft fork, using the same hacked methods that the Segwit soft forks does. I prefer hard forks because they test consensus and give people the option to stay behind if they want, it is about freedom. Hard forks are actually what guarantee the continued freedom and decentralization of the protocol.
Hard forks are also the primary mechanism within Bitcoin that serve as a check against the power of any development team.
In regards to the miners not including segwit before a hard fork, it is in the Bitcoin roundtable consensus letter itself:
This is a ridiculous question one that you know I can not answer. We do not know what our technology will be capable off in 2025. I do think that as a principle we should scale Bitcoin to whatever our technology will allow at the time, this is the point that you keep ignoring while repeating this ridiculous engineers nirvana fallacy.
You've claimed that Bitcoin can scale directly when I've called out that to reach global adoption it needs to use a second layer. You can't provide the evidence required to support your claims. I've told you this before, you don't know how to use fallacies.For you to say that I do not know how to use fallacies already implies that you do not know what logical fallacies are. You claim to be a technical expert, I claim to be an expert in philosophy, epistemology and logical fallacies are in the realm of my expertise. By saying that I do not know how to use fallacies I suppose I can take that as a compliment. I can point out the fallacies in your thinking because I suppose you do know how to use them. Since fallacies are logical mistakes which can be identified since they repeat in thought, and through philosophy and principle we can come to understand better methods of attaining truth. By identifying contradiction and logical fallacy we can refine our thinking in part through deductive reasoning, rejecting falsehood in the pursuit of truth.
Do you see the contradiction in your statement which I have highlighted. Satoshi represents the original fundamental principles of Bitcoin which you claim to stand for then in the same sentence you say that you do not care about the vision of Satoshi?
There are no contradictions. I do not care how Satoshi envisioned scaling and similar things that were far in the future. We have much better data than what he had back then. Bitcoin needs to remain a low cost, decentralized and censorship-resistant method of transferring value. I am not willing to sacrifice any of these just because a group of people want it to accommodate more people hoping to profit.I think that increasing the blocksize is what would maximize financial freedom and decentralization. More specifically increasing the blocksize is also what would lead it to being the most censorship resistant, low cost and decentralized method of transferring value.
Two megabytes is obviously a compromise, something Core could learn from. Your statements are astounding, increasing the blocksize is a single line of code, Segwit represents thousands of lines of code. Which the miners have recently said they will not adopt without a hard fork. It is true that I want to see development distributed and I am uncomfortable with the idea that Block Stream has so much control over Bitcoin, I consider it to be antithetical to its original vision.
A HF is not a single line of code. Deploying a HF is much harder than deploying a SF. I'd like to see the statements of the miners that confirm your argument. Blockstream does not have control over the development, Github and open source projects do not work like that. They might have influence, but this is completely different from control.This is a ridiculous question one that you know I can not answer. We do not know what our technology will be capable off in 2025. I do think that as a principle we should scale Bitcoin to whatever our technology will allow at the time, this is the point that you keep ignoring while repeating this ridiculous engineers nirvana fallacy.
You've claimed that Bitcoin can scale directly when I've called out that to reach global adoption it needs to use a second layer. You can't provide the evidence required to support your claims. I've told you this before, you don't know how to use fallacies.Do you see the contradiction in your statement which I have highlighted. Satoshi represents the original fundamental principles of Bitcoin which you claim to stand for then in the same sentence you say that you do not care about the vision of Satoshi?
There are no contradictions. I do not care how Satoshi envisioned scaling and similar things that were far in the future. We have much better data than what he had back then. Bitcoin needs to remain a low cost, decentralized and censorship-resistant method of transferring value. I am not willing to sacrifice any of these just because a group of people want it to accommodate more people hoping to profit. I think that increasing the blocksize is what will lead to the most decentralization and financial freedom over the long run, adoption is a very important element behind this dynamic, Satoshi wrote extensively about this and I would highly recommend that you would consider what he had to say on the subject, it certainly is relevant.
What you think is far different from the reality.Wow so you reject all research from these projects without even considering what they have to say, that is extremely close minded and unscientific.
The data has an increased chance of being biased. Provide me with third party evidence, if there is any (there should be, as you've claimed that a lot of "experts" have done the testing).You can mostly likely thank your small blockist comrades for the DDOS on the Bitcoin Unlimited website, who seem to prefer to resort to force instead of having rational open minded discussion. I am sure the website will come online again soon.
This is one of the worst features of the 'forkers', or however you want to call yourselves. You are pointing fingers with zero evidence that "small blockists" are DDOS'ing the website. I would engage with you if you actually made any real arguments, try and use your skill at writing in pursuits of reason instead of appeals to emotion.
Once more, you don't know how to recognize fallacies. Please stop. I do not consider off chain solutions to be a way to scale Bitcoin directly at all. We can scale Bitcoin directly, if Bitcoin will not do it alternative cryptocurrencies will. I do not see any reason why people would choose to use a layer build on top of the blockchain when they can just use the blockchain directly, easily, quickly and cheaply. Without the added complexion and abstraction that is required by having to use a third party on top of the blockchain in order to transact.
I think that you are fooling yourself if you think that Bitcoin can become the dominant currency of the world with high fees. Especially considering that it is not even a technological necessity yet. I accept that with far greater adoption this might be the case but blocking the growth in transaction volume now at this stage so early in its development will guarantee that Bitcoin will be outcompeted and obsolesced. I think that the blocksize limit should be significantly above the average transaction volume, this way the blocksize limit serves its original purpose as an anti spam feature, not as an economic policy tool for central planning, wielded by a group of technocrats.
I think that you are fooling yourself if you think that Bitcoin can become the dominant currency of the world with high fees. Especially considering that it is not even a technological necessity yet. I accept that with far greater adoption this might be the case but blocking the growth in transaction volume now at this stage so early in its development will guarantee that Bitcoin will be outcompeted and obsolesced. I think that the blocksize limit should be significantly above the average transaction volume, this way the blocksize limit serves its original purpose as an anti spam feature, not as an economic policy tool for central planning, wielded by a group of technocrats.
If you don't see that off-chain solutions are the best, indeed only, way to effectively scale Bitcoin then I'm sorry, but you're a simpleton, lacking in both understanding and imagination. I'm not claiming to be an expert on blockchain technology but judging the relative risk-rewards of a contentious hard fork vs. a bug-fixing and protocol-extending soft fork is really a no-brainer. Use your melon.
The word you're struggling for is "complexity." Unfortunately, but unavoidably due to its nature, Bitcoin is complex from whichever angle you view it. Simple block bumps are popular with misguided or drama-seeking devs, and with simpletons. I've identified 3 subsets of simpleton plaguing Bitcoin:
1) those who know jackshit about Bitcoin but try to force their way in by banding together as a mob. Just a casual read through r/btc reveals tons of flailing morons, clueless about even basic facts of Bitcoin.* I lost count how many times I'd be debating "Classic people" and they'd confuse LN features with SW features, for eg. This could all be corrected with proper study but tragically, most of this ilk seem obstinately learning-resistant.
2) those who trail Gavin, Brian, Mike and other assorted characters with dubious agendas. These people are a lost cause.
3) buttcoiners, bank shills, altcoiners and other dicks with an axe to grind against Bitcoin. Frig all these people too.
So look, I'm going to give all the Classic supporters in this thread the benefit of the doubt and assume you're in category 1. If so, there are plenty of free resources where you can learn more about Bitcoin. Get more knowledge then come back to this topic, you're just making caricatures of yourselves by beating all your dead horses.
Veritas, when you have a clearer picture, you'll realise that the ignorance spouted in your 1st paragraph is what blinds you to more elegant solutions; which address all the concerns and more raised in your 2nd paragraph. Side-chains will allow vastly more quick and low-fee Bitcoin transactions. That's the whole point of going in that direction. So Bitcoiners should pull together to intelligently expand the system's capabilities, using the best tools available. Core devs should be supported in their efforts to unlock more of the tremendous potential which Satoshi built into Bitcoin. You might not like how these "technocrats" are going about achieving these improvements. But suck it up. Price is clearly rising now the industry has given them its vote of confidence, so markets, miners and the majority of experts agree with their plan.
Do you think your vision is clearer than the markets, miners and experts? If that's your belief, you need to prove it with a much better technical solution than this rekt Classic bullshit.
* this might make for a good thread if anyone has the stomach for it.
This is happening now, it is a fact, not sure if you even heard what I said. Let me repeat, the blocksize needs to be significantly above average transaction volume. This is not the case now and it is certainly not the plan that Core is following. Unless you are seriously suggesting that following the Core roadmap we will end up with a blocksize limit that is significantly above the average transaction volume, say fifty percent for instance. That is obviously not the case however and Core does intend to do the opposite, it is as clear as day. I find it strange that you are even trying to deny this. Block Stream is intending to fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin through Core. At least do the genuine thing and admit to the consequences of your arguments.
Your bias is astounding. You're advocating for Classic which can't deploy (safely) the HF faster than Segwit can be deployed. Additionally there is nothing that officially states that Classic would stay above this transaction volume, say "fifty percent" either. I know why you're doing this though. As long as Core is not the main implementation everything will be fine, right?I do not need to back up that Bitcoin can increase the blocksize to two megabytes, I do not need to back this up since this has been proven and investigated thoroughly. I have been here debating this with you for months now. For you to say that I need to back this up to you that we can increase to two megabytes I find ridiculous, even Core acknowledges that this is possible. I will humor you anyway, here is a scientific paper arguing for an increased blocksize among other things.
I'm talking about you stating that Bitcoin can scale via the block size limit indefinitely (i.e. global adoption level). I'm expecting "straw-man" or more unrelated nonsense (2MB talk again maybe'). I don't need to back up that Unicorns exist either, since this has been proven and investigated thoroughly? 
Zero data provided when requested = zero merit in argument. I'm making a simple request: Show me data that proves that Bitcoin can handle 10 000 TPS by 2025 (bandwidth, storage, validation time, etc) && that it can do that without sacrificing decentralization. If you are able to do so I might change my opinion.These "solutions" do not scale Bitcoin directly at all, they are off chain solutions not the same as on chain solutions to scaling. With the exception of Segwit which would not bring about the gains you predict, even if it did it is not sufficient to avoid the economic change event that is coming according to the Core roadmap. Other small blockist I have discussed this with have at least been honest enough to acknowledge that this represents a fundamental change to the economic policy of Bitcoin and a divergence from the original vision of Satoshi. There is nothing wrong with this, though it has to be either ignorance or dishonesty for you not to acknowledge this yourself.
They do scale Bitcoin and this is where you guys are either intentionally not wanting to comprehend this, or are unable to comprehend it. This is especially the case with the Lightning Network. I don't care much about the original vision of Satoshi, nor have I ever looked much into it (appeal to authority?). I care about the fundamentals for which Bitcoin stands and I'm not willing to sacrifice decentralization for wide spread adoption.I think that increasing the blocksize is what will lead to the most decentralization and financial freedom over the long run, adoption is a very important element behind this dynamic, Satoshi wrote extensively about this and I would highly recommend that you would consider what he had to say on the subject, it certainly is relevant.
Note: I will not take anything from BU or Classic websites as "evidence". The link gives a 502 error anyways.
Wow so you reject all research from these projects without even considering what they have to say, that is extremely close minded and unscientific. You can mostly likely thank your small blockist comrades for the DDOS on the Bitcoin Unlimited website, who seem to prefer to resort to force instead of having rational open minded discussion. I am sure the website will come online again soon. This is happening now, it is a fact, not sure if you even heard what I said. Let me repeat, the blocksize needs to be significantly above average transaction volume. This is not the case now and it is certainly not the plan that Core is following. Unless you are seriously suggesting that following the Core roadmap we will end up with a blocksize limit that is significantly above the average transaction volume, say fifty percent for instance. That is obviously not the case however and Core does intend to do the opposite, it is as clear as day. I find it strange that you are even trying to deny this. Block Stream is intending to fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin through Core. At least do the genuine thing and admit to the consequences of your arguments.
Your bias is astounding. You're advocating for Classic which can't deploy (safely) the HF faster than Segwit can be deployed. Additionally there is nothing that officially states that Classic would stay above this transaction volume, say "fifty percent" either. I know why you're doing this though. As long as Core is not the main implementation everything will be fine, right?]I do not need to back up that Bitcoin can increase the blocksize to two megabytes, I do not need to back this up since this has been proven and investigated thoroughly. I have been here debating this with you for months now. For you to say that I need to back this up to you that we can increase to two megabytes I find ridiclous, even Core acknowliges that this is possible. I will humor you anyway, here is a scientific paper arguing for an increased blocksize among other things.
I'm talking about you stating that Bitcoin can scale via the block size limit indefinitely (i.e. global adoption level). I'm expecting "straw-man" or more unrelated nonsense (2MB talk again maybe'). I don't need to back up that Unicorns exist either, since this has been proven and investigated thoroughly? Zero data provided when requested = zero merit in argument. I'm making a simple request: Show me data that proves that Bitcoin can handle 10 000 TPS by 2025 (bandwidth, storage, validation time, etc) && that it can do that without sacrificing decentralization. If you are able to do so I might change my opinion. These "solutions" do not scale Bitcoin directly at all, they are off chain solutions not the same as on chain solutions to scaling. With the exception of Segwit which would not bring about the gains you predict, even if it did it is not sufficient to avoid the economic change event that is coming according to the Core roadmap. Other small blockist I have discussed this with have at least been honest enough to acknowledge that this represents a fundamental change to the economic policy of Bitcoin and a divergence from the original vision of Satoshi. There is nothing wrong with this, though it has to be either ignorance or dishonesty for you not to acknowledge this yourself.
They do scale Bitcoin and this is where you guys are either intentionally not wanting to comprehend this, or are unable to comprehend it. This is especially the case with the Lightning Network. I don't care much about the original vision of Satoshi, nor have I ever looked much into it (appeal to authority?). I care about the fundamentals for which Bitcoin stands and I'm not willing to sacrifice decentralization for wide spread adoption. Note: I will not take anything from BU or Classic websites as "evidence". The link gives a 502 error anyways.
This is a fundamental question for the future of Bitcoin, it is quite clear that Core has the position that transaction volume needs to be arbitrarily restricted in order to bring about a "fee market". Which radicly changes the economics and use cases of Bitcoin. A fundemental change of vision, since if Block Stream got their way Bitcoin would not even be considered a currency anymore. I personally think Block Streams plans for Bitcoin are guaranteed to fail, because of deep flaws within their conception of the economics and game theory of Bitcoin. Bitcoin will certainly not be the dominant currency of the world if Block Stream succeeds in radically changing Bitcoin from what we are all used to into something very different.
Straw man. You've told me multiple times that this is happening right now, I'm telling you that it isn't. Segwit gives adequate capacity and will be deployed faster than a HF.You are just constructing a huge straw man argument again after telling you time and time again that we just need to increase it to two megabytes and increase it again as needed, hopefully in step with technological progress.
No. You've said multiple times that Bitcoin can scale directly, as in we should scale it always this way. I've told you to provide evidence to back this up, but you can't.http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn/
This has everything to do with the nirvana fallacy, you are saying that if Bitcoin can not scale completly now we should not scale it at all. I think this is deeply flawed and we should scale Bitcoin as the technology allows, this was always the plan to begin with even Satoshi recognized that its global adoption depended upon continued technological progress.
No. You are mistaken again, and I have to correct you multiple times. Here are some ways which help scale Bitcoin:1) Segwit (transaction capacity 180-190%)
2) Payments channels (e.g. 21 inc, LN)
3) Sidechains (e.g. Liquid)
We are scaling Bitcoin 'right now'. Your flawed thinking that "scaling" means only by increasing the block size limit is foolish at best. Also, stop quoting Satoshi out of context.
forkin shills keep reporting in themselves up in this thread
a massive controversy, wearing my tinfoil hat to shield from this evil
a massive controversy, wearing my tinfoil hat to shield from this evil
It's sorta neat watching how many times the same people can toss the same arguments off each other, without getting bored/disheartened by the futility
. 
1) Segwit (transaction capacity 180-190%)
2) Payments channels (e.g. 21 inc, LN)
3) Sidechains (e.g. Liquid)
We are scaling Bitcoin 'right now'. Your flawed thinking that "scaling" means only by increasing the block size limit is foolish at best. Also, stop quoting Satoshi out of context.
2) Payments channels (e.g. 21 inc, LN)
3) Sidechains (e.g. Liquid)
We are scaling Bitcoin 'right now'. Your flawed thinking that "scaling" means only by increasing the block size limit is foolish at best. Also, stop quoting Satoshi out of context.
1. segwit wont offer 180%-190% on average.. that is the maximum potential not the average or the general guide approximation potential. stop overselling segwit, as you are becoming well known as a bad salesman. try sticking to reality and sell the promise not the utopian dream
please learn the code.. and i mean c++ not java
i do love the "we are scaling". um your lack of knowledge of what programming language bitcoin uses means YOU are not part of WE.
your lack of knowledge of how llong it takes to initially sync bitcoin means that your not even part of the node debate, as it seems you dont have one.
your desire to want to eventually put a node on someone elses VPS makes you not even part of the decentralization debate.
Lauda. it is time you stop pretending you are god, and hoping for some of them free premined sidechain coins for your shilling. and realise that every comment you make has been debunked so much that you and your circle jerking friends have to resort to deleting posts just to hide your fails
forkin shills keep reporting in themselves up in this thread
a massive controversy, wearing my tinfoil hat to shield from this evil
a massive controversy, wearing my tinfoil hat to shield from this evil
Jump to: