Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19607. (Read 26608922 times)

I don't know if it was a typo, but it definitely ... resonates ... with me(giggle, giggle).

This is an important step. Who's next? [Edit: This is who: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13564698 Phew, that was fast!]

Disclaimer: Sam Cole is, quite paradoxically, a PoS.

I honestly didn't think you could get any dumber.

I'm too generous.

Here's another nice one. It's how many times bigger than the transaction volume the block size limit is. I had to adjust the axis to make the recent detail visible as on the day that Satoshi implemented it, it was 710.



Does quite well as a logarithmic plot.




If anyone wants this data as a CSV or something, PM me cause it takes a while to extract from the blockchain.

Threw it up quickly here for anyone who doesn't want to wait

http://pastebin.com/NUbMdQ7t

Is that a serious question?

Of course you could do it for anything else. Including all transaction being diverted to a single address. The question is about the will and incentives to do it and always will be.

the funny thing is chinese miners are not against bigger blocks, thats just some bullshit that hearn pulled out of his ass. the only thing chinese miners really fear is the price of bitcoin collapsing because of some kiddy-nerd-developer fights of immature folks. so they said at the last scaling bitcoin conference do what ever you have to do but do it without a big breakup or fight or whatever. they even are in favor of 2MB but they want the core team to do it without big fights and media stir.

This

Nothing to do with race, everything to do with centralised mining because of subsidised electricity

Coin



Explanation

You are aware of that the blocksize limit wasn't even a parameter in the original bitcoin version? Satoshi declared it as a temporary tool that should help as no other solutions are found and that should obv be adapted if things change.

Completely dumbfuck to compare it to the 21Mio lol

It is called a instigating a "precedent": if you can manage it for one protocol parameter, you can do it for everything else.

FTFY

Tell that Maxwell and others.

I can't take it anymore I just have to ask: where does "thermos" come from and why do you/we call him that?

This is all the logs show - I'll put a script together to match them to [whenever] they make it to a block or just die. I'll mess with limitfreerelay and
minrelaytxfee and see what figures come up.

This entire mess is stupid. It's not a choice between bigger blocks OR better blocks. Do both.

Don't worry, Blockstream has everything under control.

An Open Letter from Sam Cole (CEO of KNC Miner)
Post reputation: 4 Quote
Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:49 pm

Sam Cole, CEO of KNC wrote:
All.


Maybe e-mail is not the best place to do this, but there aren’t many better choices that come to mind right now. Please feel free to quote me and forward this to anyone you see fit. You may even Post it on Reddit or other forums or simply ignore it.

To anyone reading this who was not on the original To: list. It simply means that you were not at the top of my inbox and nothing else. no one has been excluded on purpose at all.


We are clearly facing a crises like we have never faced before in the bitcoin echo-system. It appears to be completely caused by humans this time. It should be seen as a success issue, even if it’s not a nice problem to have.

Bitcoin is, as I hope you all agree, still very very small on the size of global acceptance. We have a long way to go before it actually realizes its true potential. I personally believe that bitcoin can become a great system for many things in the future. We may all have different ideas on where Bitcoin is going but I don’t believe for one second that anyone here will want it to stop and stay exactly where it is.

The issue is by doing nothing we are actually forcing it to stop growing and stay where it is.

We have on-boarded about as many users as we can. There simply is no space left to expand bitcoin. There are many competing ideas there are many smart people and possibly to many ideas. The fact remains the same:
Most of the latest development ideas coming out are not addressing our issues this time. So it will fall back on us to protect what we have built and let it expand into what we think it can become.

So I propose that we jump to 2mb in the Bitcoin classic idea. Not only will this allow us to expand bitcoin and on board more users, it will also show that:

· We will protect our investments and businesses.
· Sound economic rules govern bitcoin businesses and not just ideological ideas.
· Under pressure we can make tough decisions that are for the best of bitcoin and not for any one individual company.
· The ideas and fixes the development team produce need to be more influenced by the economic requirements we have, not just the technical ones.

Now for the other maybe good maybe bad things

· It will cause more rifts in the development teams.
· It will cause us all to go through the pain of a hard fork.

The lists above are not meant to be extensive or exhaustive and there are many that can be added to either side, but the main point is this: It’s no longer really a choice to simply stand still and wait for others to fix this problem.

I propose that we all simply stand up and stand behind bitcoin. Allow it to grow more in the simplest way possible, and I can’t emphasize enough how important simple is to this process. Humans are making this complex we don’t need technology to make it more complex.

So with the above said: We will be changing our code to run 2mb bitcoin classic ASAP, please join me in changing your code to run the same or public show your support.


Thanks,
Sam

Med vänlig hälsning | Best regards
Sam Cole
KnC
http://www.kncgroup.com

https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/an-open-letter-from-sam-cole-ceo-of-knc-miner-t4868.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/413mhn/an_open_letter_from_sam_cole_ceo_of_knc_miner/

What happens next is that they are invited to give technical advice on how to best maintain China's (un)competitive advantage. This is one thing I really am struggling to understand. If the biggest problem to Bitcoins decentralization is that over 51% of miners are potentially under the influence of the chinese government, why didn't core just implement BIP101 a year ago? Everyone would just silently approve and chinese miners would perhaps be more inclined to join foreign pools instead of running their own pools inside China's crippled communet.

yeah.. he make billyjoeallen look like a rookie even though billyjoe is one of the four punch raiders. mike hearn is #1 bitcoin troll! that was awesome!