Can't wait until small block retards are proved to be irresponsible idiots by empirical data points.
We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.
There's no such thing as a small block retard.
People have ideas and inclinations based on information that they have, and there's a lot of misinformation out there regarding what's even going on with the block chain; how much is spam, whether an increase is currently justified and/or wether segregated witness will take care of some if not all of this spamming blockage to the extent blockage exists and if not what would be better additional solutions going forward once segregated witness is in place.
Yeah people have different ideas and most of them are dumb ideas.
That's why it's important to relie on the empirical facts to judge who are right and who are the fucking irresponsible retards. It's darwinian selection. It's a process way more efficient than pointless debating.
So now we are going to see that full block are not good at all and see who were the dangerous retards who thought full blocks were somehow cool.
It's like the bolcheviks. They have ideas and they thought they were right. They talked badly of people who disagree with them. Then the testing of their ideas prove that they were huge retards and that they had their head full shit. Gmaxwell and Adam Back are the Lenin of their time. The sooner the market route around them, the better.
It seems to me you have a very precise idea of your own position at least.
I don't have such brutal and clear opinion on this issue. And from the grasp of complexity I was able to see, it seems impossible for me to have a clear point of view of the situation as we're still lacking data.
Yeah small blocks have problems, but what do you want? Bigger and bigger blocks? You do realize that in order to scale the Visa transactions we would need 800GB blocks... Seems complicated to me...
Yep. In that respect, when dealing with money and likely to continue to be attacked by governments and financial institutions, security is much more important than trying to grow too fast and to act as if you are visa when you don't have institutionalized protections.
Size is the most powerful protection. The most economic transactions flow through Bitcoin the harder it is to attack it.
"Trying to grow too fast"
Transactions double every year. That's just natural growth. If you don't like growth go use some altcoins before Bitcoin become one.
You are ridiculous.
You are not saying much of anything in your above post.. or at least whatever you seem to be saying is quite unclear. You seem to be attempting to suggest that currently bitcoin is suffering from some kind of pending emergency, when actually the opposite is the case, and bitcoin happens to be super secure with a tremendous amount of hashing power.. which is really a great thing to have during such infancy years and while bitcoin is still suffering multiple spam / ddos attacks (and still remaining robust under such attacks).
O.k. let me presume that you are a supporter of XT and or classic. Just for a moment, if we remove their fatal flaws (that is their attempts to make changes to bitcoin governance), and we only focus on their blocksize change proposals, then we see that XT had a schedule of changes (doubling the blocksize limit every couple of years), and classic had an immediate blocksize limit increase.
What are you saying that you want?
Are you only talking about blocksize limit increases, or are you talking about governance? You seem to be using words to talk about blocksize limit increase, but your insistence on such (seemingly right away) makes it sound as if you have a hidden agenda and what you really want is some kind of change to bitcoin governance.. which is a much more complicated issue.
So clearly state exactly what you are proposing and why the current path of implementing seg wit first is supposedly not sufficient in order to achieve what you want? Hello goofball.
Governance and blocksize issues are connected.
If we are stuck today with 1Mb it's because Back, Maxwell and Hill want it like that. Their vision, and agenda, is to make Bitcoin a clearinghouse.
I think this is the dumbest idea ever. I will do everything that I can to make their plan fail in order to protect the value of my bictoins and to protect the value Bitcoin could offer to mankind.
By raising the blocksize limit right now with Classic, we would let Bitcoin breath and quietly growth, and we would get rid of those toxic people.
It's not a problem if people choose to stay with Core for now though. What is important is the choice to hard fork our way out of the power of Back/Maxwell/Hill exists. And the more economic reality will hit the face of small blockists with rising fees, disgruntled users and altcoin market cap exploding, the less the support for Core there will be.
Until the day where the HF will happen because bitcoiners will see the light and stopped being fooled by Blockstream. Meanwhile I will be there all along to explain how dumd Back and Maxwell are so their support start to crumble sooner rather than later.
In other words, even though you have been throwing out the ongoing and repeated rhetoric about problem with the blocksize limit, etc etc etc., your main and real concern is governance.
I don't see what purpose is served by conflating those two issues except to confuse a large number of people who begin to believe that there is some kind of technical problem with bitcoin, and really what you and some others are asserting is that you do not like the governance system of bitcoin.
Certainly, it is not easy to change governance issues, and the problem is more complicated.
i personally get the sense that a large number of purported big blockers are also distracted by these various governance questions and attempting to suggest (while getting very emotional about the issue) that for some reason governance is broken because they cannot get their proposed block size increase to go through.
It's all just bullshit and a fabricated issue.
In order to have security and certainty, changes to the protocol should be difficult to achieve.. and it is very misguided to suggest that any of these folks are in charge of anything (Back, Maxwell or other core supporters) merely because they are stating opposition to quick and nearly uncontemplated changes that have not been tested and have not allowed seg wit to go through first. You know seg wit is a very big deal, and it is going to address a lot of issues in bitcoin, while at the same time, there is going to be a necessary adjustment and adaptation period.. and the fact that many of the core developers are committed to entertaining and outlining proposals for further changes within a few months of the implementation of seg wit should demonstrate that they are seriously considering ways to advance bitcoin in terms of scaling to likely increased demand.
