Bitcoin Forum

Enough is enough already!  Let's get Roger Ver and GMaxwell into the octagon and just punch it out.  Ver wins, it's 8MB; Max wins, it's SegWit.  Winner take all.  I say that fat fuck goes down in the first round. 

Can someone please set up a bitcoin betting website to take this action?

You can contact directbet to add up the event to their list. They have betting option for more events that can't be found in any other gambling websites.

You're right. But Roger Ver and GMaxwell have to agree too on this.
Just they'll find a way to not do this "confrontation".
Me? I would be happy with even something in between, as long as the mempool goes on a diet. But I am not great at politics and while everybody looks unhappy on the current status, it's still not changed.
The conspiracy theories would say that somebody wins on this, is happy on this and stops the things from evolving...

Maxwell would be wheezing after 45 seconds.  Ver would love dumping heavy punches into that stupid red muslim beard of his.  I am betting on Ver/8MB to win.  

Roger Ver is trained in jiu jitsu I think, but anyone with good striking would knock the fuck out of him. It's time to get Gmaxwell on the gym with some boxing lessons, we can't let the Verconomics ruin bitcoin. Core will win.

Maxwell is very soft and blobby like a marshmallow.  I don't think the gym is going to do anything for him for a very long time. 

GMaxwell will be no match for Roger Dodger, because he is full of Karate with all his black belts...  GMaxwell might win, if he spits on Roger.. like

the confrontation Roger had with the Chinese guy a long time ago.  ::) ... A match GMaxwell will win, is the one where they compare technical

knowledge and skills about Bitcoin.  :P

Yeah, Maxwell's solution for Bitcoin is to let Core/Blockstream own and manage it.  Great skills there.  

I want to embrace both SegWit *and* unlimited block size.  Is that possible?  How would I go about doing it?

Having both clients live on the network, each one of them pushing to their side, would have a devastating effect. We would be separating users and services further apart. The dust would settle and eventually one would win, but at what cost?

Many have a large stake in Bitcoin, thus we will almost certainly be able to solve this in a better way, or at least in a way that doesn't envolve face-offs.

Afaik, no mining pools are supporting both, so you would probably have to start your own pool that would be running BU as well as signaling for segwit.

How much does running a full node without mining matter in this situation?  If it does matter at all then can I run both Core and BU at the same time?  Wouldn't the 8333 port be the point of conflict?

How do I assert my preference that both SegWit and unlimited be adopted together?

you can run both, on the same network

Well, my network lives behind a NAT router so I'd have that challenge to overcome.

Suppose I did; would it make a difference?  Does someone count up the full nodes as an indicator of preference?  Oh, is that the point of https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/#user-agents?  Do folks actually care about full nodes?

I think maybe I need a developer to merge the two code paths together and then a big effort to popularize it.

You can change the port with a simple addition to the config file (maybe even via the GUI). You'll want to change the block chain directory for your second client as well (also can be accomplished with the config file) if running on the same machine.


No harm in trying. Nodes are beneficial to the network.


Yes, people care.


If that's what you want!

Well segwit is a precursor to any block size increase. Once it is in place, and once utxo set pruning is in place, then maybe we could start considering some (much smarter than BU, with actual thought put into it) flexible block size suggestions. With the current state of the network, some devs are saying that block size *decrease* is needed now to ensure network security.

So at this moment, it is outright irresponsible and dangerous for the network, that is why only people who have zero stake in bitcoin or people who invested heavily into ethereum advocate for it. They would be ok with bitcoin dead.

Do u really mean www.bitcoinbetting.website ? :D

I thought it was only one dev calling for a reduction?  I certainly approve of a dynamic blocksize that can both increase and decrease according to demand, but I wouldn't want to see it reduced when demand is already high.



Yes, SegWit needs to happen as a compromise.  Would something like this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1911288.0) sound reasonable if it includes SegWit?  I would prefer something algorithmic instead of that "emergent consensus" stuff advocated by BU.

The ability to fight is not a great metric for measuring decision making in a technological environment.

Dog, you should know this as you said in 2011 that bitcoin would die....oh how you were so wrong.

Bitcoin is dead you moron.  Just because crazy Chinamen like paying insane amounts for it, doesn't mean it is alive.  The network is fully fucking broken and a backlog and high fees is making loads of application builders to abandon their efforts to make blockchain based things.  Core Blockstream only see two things: settlement network and lightning.  Unfortunately there are a huge bunch of transactions that don't fit into those classes. 

Bitcoin isn't dead, it is fucking dead.  Blockstream killed it.

I just love reading those village idiots on here :) Too bad this forum has been overrun by signature spammers and these rare displays of pure idiocy are becoming harder to find. Oh well.