Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 16238. (Read 26609878 times)

Hey, you could keep up if you had a 425 Mbps connection

But that's still less than unlimited right? Hmm maybe BU was actually on to something 

Assuming an average transaction size of 600 bytes and 7.5 billion people:
31.25 GB

"While I am confident that BCH will eventually be recognized as the One True Bitcoin..." with that logic it's definitely good to diversify so you don't loose all of your money. In due time you'll look back and realize how you were taken for a ride, and thank people who stood up to it  

oh oh do tell how block increases helps on boarding the world? Would you mind doing a simple math on how big your blocks should be for every person in the world to do just one transaction on chain per day? I'll wait

I'll believe a hard fork is absolutely necessary when the entire development community--including the actual developers--concedes that it's necessary. Not because of block politics.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/850820512771055616

I have no problem at all with the exchange/sharing of ideas and non-confrontational debate. It's healthy and should be applauded.

But c'mon, this whole block size thing? FFS, it's getting really old guys. Like for years and years now has this topic been discussed and debated ad nauseam. By internet armchair warrior geniuses who have no computer programming or blockchain coding expertise, but somehow think they know better than the very people involved with the project, the Bitcoin Core dev team. The block size debate is a dead horse that has been beaten so much over the years, it's been pounded into complete dust.

And then these same people, after years and years of flooding the forums with teeth gnashing, circular and confrontational debate, FINALLY get what they want (BCH w/ 8MB block limit) and their own dev team separate from Core, and then they have the audacity to dismiss it lightly and come back and continue the debate around shoving bigger blocks into Bitcoin? Like now BCH wasn't somehow good enough, wasn't what they wanted after all? I thought that bigger blocks was the answer to all of Bitcoin's problems? Wasn't BCH supposed to solve everything?

These people aren't just debating and discussing ideas. They are trolling.

I have a pretty decent idea of your motivations, we have been having various interactions in these BCT forum threads for nearly a couple of years... you have been ascribing to various big blocker nonsense during much of that time in spite of a few intermittent lucid moments that you might share with us.



I don't know about that.  If we are starting from different premises, then all the logic in the world is not going to help.




Irrelevant speculation. 

How many folk do you believe are on bitcoin, currently, maybe .1%.  How many want to get on, perhaps 1%.. We gotta long fucking way to go before we would get from 1% to 100%, and likely systems are going to evolve as more people want to onboard... so you are creating some kind of artificial problem that currently does not exist in order that you can be right about some problem that does not exist... I am failing to understand how exactly the onboarding of 100% of the world is relevant at this particular moment of BTC's development - so maybe the burden is on you to show how that supposed problem (that you made up from real facts and logic) is relevant, exactly.




Why would I have any burden to show you facts or logic about a speculative scenario that you made up (and maybe something that is 30 years into the future) as if it were somehow relevant about a conversation about issues in front of bitcoin today?



You don't really mean this do you?  You really think that we are talking about something that boils down to basic math?  So yeah, you are presenting a supposed issue that does not really exist because the essence of our disagreement does not have much of anything to do with basic math, right? 

I mean really.... Can you at least agree that we are somewhere on the lower end of a fraction of a percentage of world adoption, and just imagine first of all getting to a point of 1% adoption might take some time. 

If there are 7 billion people in the world, then 1% would be 70 million using bitcoin in some kind of way... Are we even close to that?  Are we even close to half of that, I have my doubts.  So probably we should be figuring out scenarios involving these kinds of more realistic numbers rather than suggesting some fantastical numbers involving anywhere close to 7 billion people.

Why does it make you so upset that other people see the world differently than you do?  If they are as wrong as you believe, you should just let time prove you right.  Instead, you get your panties in a bunch whenever someone says anything you disagree with.

...aaand you're back to your personally-comfortable position of ascribing to others motivations that are not only completely wrong, but also utterly unknowable by you anyhow. Rather than employ reason against my assertions. This is what substitutes for logic in the JJG world. So much easier than defending your pronouncements, isn't it?

My statements about the time it would take to onboard the world at 1MB are clear above. If you want to tell me they are incorrect, then show me where I am wrong. Or are you incapable of the elementary arithmetic required to do the calculation yourself? Need handholding?

Why don't you work within what actually exists rather than fantasies about what could exist but doesn't?   

segwit is the part that currently exists, so you cannot just assume it away because it is already locked in and part of bitcoin.  If you want to remove segwit, then you need to get 95% consensus in order to remove it.. so that does not seem too likely to happen, now does it?

Irrelevant. It is true whether or not I say it.


Yeah, you talk in a lot of hypotheticals rather than looking at the actual transaction on the blockchain.