Whoever is running this psyops divide-and-conquer blocksize consensus attack has one of two probable motives:
1) Want Bitcoin to crash, price crashes with it, they buy up BTC for pennies and then run a counter psyops campaign to get all the core devs to group hug.
2) Want bitcoin to crash so they can introduce a competing altcoin that they've premined or have some other way of profiting from, perhaps just from being early adopters.
Bitcoin's going to crash if the blocksize isn't raised. In the event of an economic catastrophe, nobody will care about xaction fees. they will stampede using Bitcoin as an escape from FIAT hell until the exit gets jammed with bodies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_biasDid you ever stop to think that some of us have legitimate concerns about the existing proposals to raise the block size?
I already have certain difficulties running a full node (if I don't change some settings to gimp it, it will often happily consume enough of my bandwidth to bring other internet uses to a crawl) and I have dedicated hardware and top tier home internet speeds.
There is no ulterior motive here. I don't plan to modify my Bitcoin holdings regardless of the exchange rate (I don't speculate at all, ever).
I am what I would consider a Bitcoin fanatic. Beyond the idealistic reasons that I choose to use Bitcoin, I have plenty to lose (financially) if Bitcoin drops in value (and plenty to gain if it increases in value). If I am concerned about my ability (as a Bitcoin fanatic) to run a full node with the current anti-spam (has spam been fixed by the way?) 1MB block size limit in place, what is going to happen when the data I need to share with my peers doubles (or increases 8-fold, wtf!)? When Bitcoin fanatics have doubts about running a full node, I would imagine that the robustness of the decentralized network has been harmed.
Yes, I am of the opinion that I absolutely must run a full node to take full advantage of Bitcoin.
So, before we take the training wheels off the software, perhaps we should take a long hard look at network efficiency (and that fucking miserable database).
In order for Bitcoin to provide us with censorship-proof transactions, it needs to function (and function well) in situations where Bitcoin data is difficult to share. This task obviously becomes more difficult when the amount of data to be shared is increased! Call me crazy, but I won't be happy until the Bitcoin network is running smoothly on a worldwide distributed wireless mesh network (this is what I think needs to happen in order to keep Bitcoin transactions censorship-proof).
What you call a "psyops divide-and-conquer blocksize consensus attack", I call genuine disagreement (and after reading this forum for the past few month, possible inability to reach agreement).
I've used Bitcoin for going on five years now and I can count the number of transactions I've made on my fingers and toes. Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist.
It wouldn't be an effective attack unless there was genuine disagreement to exacerbate. The shrinking number of nodes could be easily fixed by borrowing a trick from our Proof of Stake friends: Take some fraction of the block reward away from the miners and distribute it to full node operators. Small miners already running nodes would be largely unaffected. Pool miners would take a little hit, but that's a good thing, right? Pools are a threat to decentralization, aren't they?
I've been in Bitcoin since 2011 also, and I quit running a full node, but since this bear market dragged on so long, I've been forced to arbitrage my coins just to generate some income. This means my transactions on the chain have gone up by a factor of 50. None of these transactions are dust.
If Bitcoin reaches escape velocity, blockchain traffic will get exponentially higher. It doesn't matter if sidechains are used or not. It doesn't matter if fees go up to $10/xaction. If we go from a million active users to a Billion, we could reduce on chain transactions by 90% and still have well over 100X the current xaction volume.
Even 1% of current worldwide Western Union and Moneygram, and international wire transfers would far exceed our current 7TPS cap. This doesn't count ACH and SWIFT xfers, credit cards, PayPal, or any other payment processors.
The blockchain is also used for colored coin xactions which you may or may not consider dust, but if we get even 1% of the volume of NASDAQ, NYSE, and other stock, bond, commodity, and derrivatives market traffic--even just settlements between exchanges--it would swamp Bitcoin.
The block chain is also used for other time stamp operations and these would increase in volume also.
There is NO WAY a mainstream Bitcoin can remain even a symbolic peer-to-peer network without increasing transaction capacity.
if miners really cared about the falling number of nodes, they would support proposals to give up part of their block reward to full node operators. Until they do that, the only plausible explanation for resisting blocksize increases is GREED. You want the price to go up? Give investors more for their money. Give them a network that is more useful. If Bitcoin doesn't, some altcoin will.
The sheeple & bitcoin (from:
https://archive.is/7dX46)
Lets face it most of the public don't give a shit about the correct terminology of Fiat, Crypto or Gold.
What they care about is money! you know the stuff that buys food beer and pays the goddamn bills.
Let's be honest this sub does not represent the demographic breakdown of the mainstream public, it's full of geeks, smart arses and libertarians, the rest are shills and trolls employed by the "MAN" to throw a spanner in the works to fuck this crypto shit up.
The so called sheeple are busy watching the latest soap opera or some vacuous Kardashian related shite.
If not the Oscars or some Z Celebrity, they're engrossed by the latest "Demockery" rigged voting competition, misguidedly thinking that their vote somehow counts lol
.
Before I forget,.... those who express philanthropic tendencies, and wish to empower the unbanked around the world, very noble ..but lets be real.. most of you don't give a flying fuck about them really!, it's just a good line to drop when your real motive gets exposed.
The first priority of most sheeple in the western world is to find somewhere to live, and that might involve getting a mortgage or renting with bank controlled fiat.
Once you sign the dotted line you are subject to the "TAX!" that they will enforce with their guns and corrupt criminal police force.
As for the people of the so called third world, their first priority is food, dodging bullets and bombs, that the sheeple of the first world empowered their sociopathic leaders to manufacture for profit, to drop on the innocent and disenfranchised in the so called third world.
If you want Bitcoin to make a difference, "HOARD" it and "SAVE" it or "HOLD" it or "HODL" it.
"I know, I know" many people say you should just use it, get real! you don't walk around with a Gold Bar all the time, do you?
For christ sake! stop trying to copy banks, you have the power to get the price of each Bitcoin to $5,000 at least, and watch the tsunami of so called mainstream adopters.
Unpalatable as it sounds "Greed"! is the catalyst, you're fortunate as early adopters, and it's your duty! to get BTC above the price of Gold, and watch the fiat ivory towers collapse.
TLDR;; HODL!
I dont oppose scaling.
Just in due time, with actual metrics, with proper researches and solutions that does not hamper the universality and inalienability of the network, not at the expense of decentralization and censorship resistance, not to hand bitcoin to big corps, whether it be payment processors or mining consortiums, etc etc... and no, i am certainly not craving some "governance" besides bitcoin's own rule, which are meant to be HARD, if not impossible to change.
95% consensus is hard to get, that is why bitcoin will always be n°1, because you cant brainwash as much people with false socialist hopes and silicon unicorns. Because it is already spreading in the wild (and beyond the tiny weeny reddit and btct sphere).
SO yes, I certainly oppose arbitrarily raising a limit that has been set up to prevent spam attacks.
You can always repeat ad nauseum that "Bitcoin's going to crash if the blocksize isn't raised", to me it just shows how misinformed and gullible you are.
Not reconcilable? please, i've come to think the sooner you and your alike fork off to some "infinite-Zomg-ecofriendly-POS-blockchain-technology-3.0-VISAmimic" the better, and bitcoin could finally resume its progression towards domination and with no concessions whatsoever.
