Bitcoin Forum

Recently many discussions are forming from different sides and ideals for some sort of major or minor CHANGE.

I believe the best future for bitcoin is to preserve the core of the code and ideas and ONLY patch SECURITY issues as they come up. 

I want bitcoin AS IT IS and DO NOT wish for it to "upgrade".

Upgrade… And I Show You How Deep The Rabbit Hole Goes.

Your thoughts.

Adoption should heavily influence your views imo, we want as many people using bitcoin as possible.  We can always create more crypto in the future thats the beauty of it.

Wrong

The choice is between two different forks.

conservative vs liberal is a false choice, no-one is actually offering it, in, you know, reality.

So you saying, if the block size reach a limit where it cannot handle the transactions... we should just leave it to sort it self out or just collapse?

In any applications, there are updates for scalability... Why not the Bitcoin protocol?

I also like the idea of minimal changes, but I can see a situation where security patches only, would not be a good idea. We need to be preventative to avoid disasters in the future. 

As bitcoin gains popularity more people would be using the bitcoin for their daily transactions in their life, that time perhaps, the idea might also change to increase the mining above than the 21 Million bitcoins, or similar to this and also we would be requiring more and more cryptos in the near future, so up-gradation is imperative here.

this will only limit the potential of bitcoin, we know that the TX limit will be reached soon, so why not implenting a small change everytime we need the saturation? i do not see any heavy problem with this

by the time the next change will happen i'm sure chinese will have better bandwidth infrastructure or less costly at least

this is the opposite of everything.  
1) bitcoin is not for the masses' daily transaction. 2) changing the 21m cap is just losing everything.

Huh? Where did you get that idea from? I think you wont find many bitcoiners that think of bitcoin as a transaction system that is only for big transactions. Adoption in every small use case is something worked on pretty hard.

So i think your image of bitcoin is simply way different from what other bitcoiners see in bitcoin. So thats the reason for your statement and you wont get a consensus over that for sure.

Considering what a mucky shower of shit the existing fork talk has been, it would be far healthier to come up with the one and final fork that does its best to take into account as many future possibilities as possible.

I dunno how viable that is, but BTC is still tiny enough to be thrown around a little still. If there were tens or hundreds of billions in vested interests and it had started to become a real player in international money then lack of consensus could either freeze it in place and eventually become an irrelevance or shatter completely.

2.7 tps means it either ends up as a plaything of elites or just a proof of concept and technical backwater while something truly scalable blows it into the weeds.

Mr Miner wants a 0.1 BTC fee so I can spend my coins? I would spend that on sending all of them to an exchange and leaving Bitcoin behind forever.

are you saying that bitcoin should not embrace adoption? i don't believe that satoshi believed that bitcoin will remain onyl a niche market and nothing else

and also there is no correlation between surpassing the 21M and bitcoin not being for the masses, i mean bitcoin could stay at 21M(and it should) while gaining popularity and reach mainstream status

and do we really want another inflationary garbage system? i think not, unless changing the cap mean rising it by few millions and not making it unlimited like with doge...

My thoughts are that you are welcome to vote in such a way by choosing to run core, but other users are free to vote for an upgrade by running other software if they so choose.  That's all there is to it, really.

There seem to be quite a few new threads at the moment where certain people think they know best.  They either allude to the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to choose change, or if they do support a change there will be scary consequences (which seems to be the vague threat here).  But at the end of the day, you can't make everyone agree with you.  I'll say the same thing to you as I've said to everyone else:  If you want to use an open source coin, you have to accept the fact that anyone can release a modified client at any time with any features they choose.  It's then up to the users securing the network to decide whether to accept those changes or not.  If you are securing the network, you get to vote, but that's it.  If you don't like that, there are plenty of closed source coins out there where it's up to the developers alone to decide the features and the views of the users count for very little.  Just be thankful you have a say in this at all.

 

adoption is a market force.  raising tps and allowing coder spam on the blockchain will not increase user adoption. 

i'm surprised with your attitude.  seems you think it is ok to go against your core beliefs as long as its just a bit at a time.  slippery slope.

The change is for upgrading the bitcoin and keep it stay competitive advantage among altcoins. Why not have these changes? It will fix some existing issues and boost the adoption by the masses.
More crypto in the future cannot be the solution. Most of them are crappy and will die soon.

LOL I misread the title.  But I am wondering if we can have instead of the donkey and elephant, a tortoise and a hare?  Please?

not a bit at time but one time only by a few bit

if we rise it to 22M this will actually make nothing, except cover the coins that are lost, and prolong the mining activity before the fee era, i'm not in favor of a continuous increase, so if this will be really necessary for whatever reason(i can not think of anything, right now, because maybe there are not reasons for it...) then it is better to not go overboard with it, and increase it by few %