Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too - page 2.

bitcoinmasterlord

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1006

Quote from: slaveforanunnak1 on August 21, 2015, 02:31:59 PM

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 02:30:43 PM

Quote from: hodedowe on August 20, 2015, 01:54:43 PM

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to a max of $0.50 USD, omg so much and then only...) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.

Sad

Edited for clarification and to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin".
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--

Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic.

I think you miss something. We don't want to devalue mining by lowering fees, we wan't to keep the fees the way they are now.

What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services?

Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so.

And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees.

Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin.

So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted.

I can't believe that bitcoiners go around screaming after control of their own currency. Only a certain amount of transactions, the miners need to earn more money.

Right... as if the mining corporations doesn't earn enough. Roll Eyes

READ THIS!
http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

It's funny how everyone claims to have the core principles of bitcoin on his side. The article says xt-people want a visa because they want to pay everything with it.

I would say the other side wants something like visa since they want the fees to grow to a level that we could have used paypal from the start instead bitcoin.

And why should we only raise blocks when the fire burns? You know that takes a while until it is coded and everyone switched.

And with these limits you have NO space at all in case bitcoin adoption makes a huge step. When amazon, for some reason, would start to accept bitcoin then bitcoin would be dead. The user experience would be deadly. All because of these artificial block size limits.

Restrictions... not really what you have in mind when thinking of bitcoin.

bitcoinmasterlord

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1006

Quote from: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 11:35:10 AM

yeah and for that crap argument is better to give all the power for developing bitcoin to one person. One man to rule a p2p system.. Wake up! Are you blind?

Now i know what you fear. And yes, you are right. The thing is... nearly no one following bitcoin xt wants the other crap they want. The result will be that, in case bitcoin core is not forking, then users will switch to xt. Then bitcoin core needs to fork, otherwise it will die. When that happens xt users will switch back.

Even when that doesn't happen. There would be other developers that would create xt versions that are free of the crap. And every bitcoiner could move on on that branch.

You should not fear that. No one is forced to use any crap hearn or so can come up with.

bitcoinmasterlord

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1006

Quote from: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 10:29:49 AM

i think bitcoin need not a fork, not an increase of block but a vote decentralized system based in blockchain for all the users who want to take part and based in blockchain.

Sure... and everyone with enough coins will buy himself votes. Or how do you imagine that these votes could go on only slightly correct? Roll Eyes

Quote from: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 10:41:36 AM

nice move to suicide.. Tongue

. They are lunatics or they have gain so much money that they dont care.. I dont know why they cant see the storm coming..

Or maybe... just maybe you are not the clever one here. Roll Eyes

bitcoinmasterlord

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1006

Quote from: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 10:04:06 AM

this action is not anarchy is not even democracy is clear facism

At this point i can't take you serious anymore. You act like hearn and gavin have any might to destroy bitcoin. That's plain stupid.

I agree that it is immature how gavin tried to extort everyone but there are no xt fans that want any of the other shit hearn has in his mind.

So i really don't have a clue what goes on in your head. Roll Eyes

bitcoinmasterlord

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1006

Quote from: chek2fire on August 20, 2015, 06:36:17 PM

core developers says that will increase the blocksize to 2mb asap. I think is not necessary to go bigger atm. The evolution never need a shock to be successful.

Ok, and what will you do when amazon suddenly offers bitcoin and a huge amount of new users flow in? You would kill the bitcoin adoption because all users would have a terrible user experience.

The only way for bitcoin to succeed is being free of restrictions.

slaveforanunnak1

hero member

Activity: 743

Merit: 502

Quote from: valiz on August 21, 2015, 02:39:32 PM

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 02:30:43 PM

What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services?

Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so.

And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees.

Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin.

So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted.

BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin!

Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization!

You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing.

EXACTLY! speaking of... check dow! it's taking a huge shit! down almost 450 pts.

valiz

sr. member

Activity: 471

Merit: 250

BTC trader

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 02:30:43 PM

What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services?

Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so.

And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees.

Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin.

So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted.

BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin!

Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization!

You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing.

slaveforanunnak1

hero member

Activity: 743

Merit: 502

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 02:34:03 PM

Quote from: sintax on August 20, 2015, 02:14:00 PM

Quote from: meono on August 20, 2015, 02:01:06 PM

Quote from: hodedowe on August 20, 2015, 01:54:43 PM

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.

Sad

Oh did you actually?

And did you check the source of material that you read?

Cause your conclusion can be drawn blindly by just reading the titles of the threads in this section..... Which should only take you 5mins. I feel bad that you wasted several weeks for the same result

I think hodedowe's conclusion pretty much nailed it on the head. You on the other hand are a shameless xt shill, begone to the alts board!

Says the practically new account. Roll Eyes

Sure, you are more legit than meono... Roll Eyes

I agree... when we would have started with bitcoin to pay that kind of fee then we could have stayed at paypal too.

Ridiculous how some bitcoiners see things.

you people are gross.

bitcoinmasterlord

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1006

Quote from: sintax on August 20, 2015, 02:14:00 PM

Quote from: meono on August 20, 2015, 02:01:06 PM

Quote from: hodedowe on August 20, 2015, 01:54:43 PM

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.

Sad

Oh did you actually?

And did you check the source of material that you read?

Cause your conclusion can be drawn blindly by just reading the titles of the threads in this section..... Which should only take you 5mins. I feel bad that you wasted several weeks for the same result

I think hodedowe's conclusion pretty much nailed it on the head. You on the other hand are a shameless xt shill, begone to the alts board!

Says the practically new account. Roll Eyes

Sure, you are more legit than meono... Roll Eyes

I agree... when we would have started with bitcoin to pay that kind of fee then we could have stayed at paypal too.

Ridiculous how some bitcoiners see things.

slaveforanunnak1

hero member

Activity: 743

Merit: 502

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 02:30:43 PM

Quote from: hodedowe on August 20, 2015, 01:54:43 PM

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to a max of $0.50 USD, omg so much and then only...) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.

Sad

Edited for clarification and to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin".
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--

Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic.

I think you miss something. We don't want to devalue mining by lowering fees, we wan't to keep the fees the way they are now.

What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services?

Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so.

And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees.

Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin.

So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted.

I can't believe that bitcoiners go around screaming after control of their own currency. Only a certain amount of transactions, the miners need to earn more money.

Right... as if the mining corporations doesn't earn enough. Roll Eyes

READ THIS!
http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

bitcoinmasterlord

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1006

Quote from: hodedowe on August 20, 2015, 01:54:43 PM

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to a max of $0.50 USD, omg so much and then only...) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.

Sad

Edited for clarification and to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin".
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--

Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic.

I think you miss something. We don't want to devalue mining by lowering fees, we wan't to keep the fees the way they are now.

What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services?

Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so.

And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees.

Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin.

So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted.

I can't believe that bitcoiners go around screaming after control of their own currency. Only a certain amount of transactions, the miners need to earn more money.

Right... as if the mining corporations doesn't earn enough. Roll Eyes

slaveforanunnak1

hero member

Activity: 743

Merit: 502

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 02:22:55 PM

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 20, 2015, 11:51:13 AM

Oh... didn't see such list yet. Till now i thought the factions are relatively averaged strong but the list looks like there is no real chance that bitcoin core will get the 8mb blocks.

Thats good! Core should fork to a 2 or a 4mb block if the mempool is getting really close to full and i don't mean full like this:

bitcoinmasterlord

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1006

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 20, 2015, 11:51:13 AM

Oh... didn't see such list yet. Till now i thought the factions are relatively averaged strong but the list looks like there is no real chance that bitcoin core will get the 8mb blocks.

bitcoinmasterlord

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1006

Quote from: forevernoob on August 18, 2015, 10:44:44 AM

Quote from: meono on August 17, 2015, 06:12:07 PM

Changetip is a sidechain? Is this some intelligence displyed by the antiXT-er s? When you dont even know technicality you should stick to polictic ie. Mike is an evil person, and core devs are good guys
Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain

So it's a offchain solution? What's the difference it just proves that everything doesn't have to be on the blockchain.
There is no need to bloat the chain.

It's a difference creating a service that is used by users voluntarely instead forcing them to another service by making the original one unuseable or too expensive.

BNO

full member

Activity: 157

Merit: 100

Ars Technica reveals the cleary shady motivations of people AGAINST XT:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/08/op-ed-why-is-bitcoin-forking/

bitcoinmasterlord

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1006

Quote from: forevernoob on August 17, 2015, 05:28:55 PM

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 17, 2015, 03:35:55 PM

Quote from: forevernoob on August 11, 2015, 10:01:46 AM

Why would users care if their transacations went over the blockchain or not? All they want is to transfer money.

*lol* That's one of the funniest statements you gave in this thread. Sure, we only want to transfer money, let's use paypal or western union maybe. I think you don't get it. Bitcoin is the currency and i don't think that the majority of bitcoins want bitcoin to be split into a bitcoin high amount transfer system and some altcoin bum amount transfer system.

I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. Of course it's in the users best interest to use Bitcoin over fiat. But how many users know that?
What you want is mass adoption right? Do you think everyone is aware of the dangers of FIAT?
Fact is most users don't care and "they just want to transfer money" they don't know the difference between FIAT and Bitcoin.

But why do you write that? Yes, most aren't aware. But bitcoin will become used more and more when people realize it's usefullness. That doesn't mean that we should give up and make bitcoin something different.

Bitcoin will get used more and more.

And this 1MB blocksize is even a risk preventing that. Imagine amazon would tomorrow directly accept bitcoins. Big marketing involved. You know what happens? Bitcoin will be killed. The blocksize limit will make it useless. And all the interested persons will spread the hate about money they "lost". The low speed and nothing works.

No, bitcoin NEEDS to be prepared for new users and transactions.

Quote from: forevernoob on August 15, 2015, 09:04:34 AM

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 17, 2015, 03:35:55 PM

Quote from: forevernoob on August 11, 2015, 10:01:46 AM

And why do we need to increase transacations to increase mining fees? When we could just increase the fees?

I think the greed is speaking out of you clearly. Just increase the fee... it doesn't matter what effect that has on bitcoin adoption. Guess it would be great for the lightning network owners... higher fee means more customers and that means more earnings for the ligthning network owners.

Well, i'm glad we aren't all lightning network owners. Roll Eyes

Higher fees doesn't automatically mean higher profits for lightning network.
There are other side chains. Change tip being one example. And as I have said before there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from creating a alternative to the lightning network.

But a big chunk will flow in that direction for sure. I mean they created that network to take away transactions from bitcoin.

Again... i don't have anything against that network. Only that some people with might, remind me on politics, have their own agenda and seem to make it bad for us.

Quote from: forevernoob on August 15, 2015, 09:04:34 AM

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 17, 2015, 03:35:55 PM

*lol* You speak like you never used fiat. Yes, you can use fiat without fees. And yes, bitcoin started to replace a good chunk of it.

Naming legitimate transactions spam is ridiculous. But i think i won't get emotional. Your interests shine through pretty clearly.

Fiat without fees? Ever heard of inflation?

Inflation is practically a fee on holding it. Not on spending it. If you spend all your fiat then you don't pay a fee anymore or at all.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

fuck you oliver janssens aka litecoinguy.
go crawl back in that pityful foundation you waited so long to get a seat at.

and kiss fuck hearn and the crappy lighthouse business you are doing together.
lol yet another sketchy fundraising website.
and hearn ripped you off how much again to 'finance' this shit? Cheesy

ps: trying to erase your racist BS too uh..

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/25/belgian-racist-uses-spurious-copyright-c

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=olivier+janssens

chek2fire

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1142

Ιntergalactic Conciliator

and who he think he is this guy Gavin and he want this power for himself. Is nothing anymore for bitcoin and bitcoin can survive without him. I think he has bid idea for himself

bitcoinmasterlord

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1006

Quote from: forevernoob on August 15, 2015, 09:04:34 AM

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 15, 2015, 06:40:27 AM

Bitcoin without a block size limit could handle everything. Only because this limit was implemented we became problems. We easily could fight the "bloating" by implementing output related fees.

According to the chart there is still a limit when block size reaches 8GB, so it still doesn't scale...

Right. It doesn't scale. That's why i'm for a complete drop of the limit. It was considered temporary anyway to restrict the grow of the blockchain in the beginning.

And you can see that the spam problem is there with a limit. It was not there when the limit was far away. So there is no reason that then suddenly spam would create huge blocks. No reason for a spammer to do that.

Quote from: forevernoob on August 15, 2015, 09:04:34 AM

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 15, 2015, 06:40:27 AM

Quote from: forevernoob on August 09, 2015, 05:18:19 PM

So you are saying Bitcoin doesn't work now? I wonder who is spreading the FUD now?

What are you speaking about? Where did i wrote something like that? You were the one who claimed we would need an additional network so that bitcoin could become a high fee transaction system. I would not be surprised if you actually would be one of these devs with goal conflict.

I believe that if there is demand for more transactions the market will find a way to deal with it. Either by a increase of fees or something like the lightning network.
I never said "we need the lightning network".

Right. The market over all found already a solution. Mastercard, Visa and so all are expensive so people switch to bitcoin.

So now you come and explain, "Let's make bitcoin expensive. People will find an alternative." Surely that is a clever plan. Cheesy

Quote from: forevernoob on August 15, 2015, 09:04:34 AM

You said this:

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 15, 2015, 06:40:27 AM

So we need to wait for a third party network to make bitcoin work. Seriously? Roll Eyes

I interpret that as you don't think Bitcoin is working properly now?

You interprete wrong. You claim that the fee for bitcoin transactions need to be so high that people start to use other solutions. So for you bitcoin is not the solution. It only will work with altcoins that fix it.

Quote from: forevernoob on August 15, 2015, 09:04:34 AM

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 15, 2015, 06:54:25 AM

Why using privately run third party solutions when we have the original. Only because some greedy persons want to break bitcoin for their own good doesn't mean that all bitcoiners will support them.

And about massive block chain grow do you speak? You speak like the blocks are full constantly. They aren't. And spamming only works because the fees are increasing then. So how do you get the idea that there would be an uncontrolled grow without a block size limit? Where should that come from suddenly?

I never claimed that the blocks will be full constantly, but obviously the block chain will increase in size since people will be able to make transactions without fees.

And? I do those transactions all the time. Does this lead to no fees happening on the network anymore? Surely not.

Quote from: forevernoob on August 15, 2015, 09:04:34 AM

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 15, 2015, 06:54:25 AM

Maybe the market don't want to be forced using lightning networks? Roll Eyes

And this adaption... it has led to enough confusion already. Didn't you read all the threads about newbies and even established members that got their transaction stuck because of spamming suddenly started? That surely will help bitcoin adoption. Roll Eyes

About the options... that's mostly right. We often enough only have the choice to use the less worst option. Because the best option, that you think it is, doesn't have the needed support yet.

If you don't like the lightning network feel free to deveolpe a better alternative. The market won't force you to use lightning network.
And people complaining about transactions getting stuck don't know how bitcoin works - they are under the impression that they should be able to use bitcoin without any fees.
Fortunately it seems like they have adapted and increased their fees since I don't see any people complaining now.

I don't have an aversion against the lightning network. I have an aversion when the owners of that network try to make bitcoin worse only to make users switch to the lightning network. And momentarely it looks like that.

And NO, i got transactions stuck too. Only because i did not notice that the spammers started again. And you very well still can be caught when you send your transaction in the wrong moment. Then how well will you think about that fast transaction system that lets your transaction hang in the air for days?

And no, they don't complain anymore because the spam attacks stopped for now.

By the way... you contradict yourself. In your race to get your confirmation through you will always have losers when the blocks are full. Someone will always have the transaction with the smallest fee. Even when the fee is high really.

And only because you can send zero fee transactions doesn't mean that you will do that all the time or that everyone wants to max out that system. The reality proofs already that this is not the case.

chek2fire

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1142

Ιntergalactic Conciliator

If you dont like how bitcoin works and it decentralized system and if you want to give the rule power to only one person why you dont create an altcoin and isntead of that you try to hijack Bitcoin?

Topic: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too - page 2. (Read 8655 times)