Exactly. The grace period should be 6 to 12 months IMO. What Gavin suggested with Classic is a joke (28 days). Businesses can't successfully develop, test and deploy in that time-frame. Even if they could, it would likely end up problematic due to it being rushed. The only way that it *may* work for e.g. <6 months if everyone was running non-custom versions of the software, which we know is not the case.

---

You know, what I find very unfortunate and saddening is the toxicity towards Segwit. I mean, it's a *wonderful* development that will enable Bitcoin to scale further and better. The usual fork supporters are very negative towards it, while they should be appreciative in the lines of (random generic statement) "Great development! Now we can and should plan a hard fork.". I don't participate in those subreddits, but I do read them for behavioral analysis.

I've seen argumentation using the fact that the Bitcoin 'dominance' percentage is at ~80%.

Read this thread: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ.

We can't predict technological growth that far out into the future.

It isn't just the download, it's also the validation time. A full client may occasionally get broken for whatever reason, and that usually requires a reindex which takes a painful amount of time on non high-end hardware.

This is also known as ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion).

I prefer to avoid the usage of that unless there's appeal to authority or I have to defend myself. This just seems like a slimmer version of r/btc, where they're attacking someone on a daily basis.

Correct. In theory it was thought that the minor chain would quickly die out. Now we know that this doesn't necessarily have to be true (as demonstrated by ETC).

Well, if you're looking at the whole picture then I agree with you.

ETH seems like a joke when it comes to security nowadays. Seems like there's a lot of trouble waiting in their code.

Well, IMO doing a hard fork on Bitcoin just to increase the block size limit to X is horribly inefficient. The HF should be packed with things that are required, but can only be done with a HF (since we know these are not, and will not be a often thing with Bitcoin).

You can find the picture and more information in this thread.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial introductory thread. Please read: Welcome threads and introduction posts and Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ before posting.

Hereby I confirm that I have successfully moved the funds from OP's wallet to my own address as agreed with them via PM. Now I'll wait for you to provide your own address for relocation of remaining funds (3.88xx - 1). Provide me with one (either by posting here or via PM) and I'll finalize this as soon as possible. Please also make a backup or two of the wallet that will be used here.

---

Update: You're very welcome.

We usually use the terminology funded (or pre-funded) vs. DIY coins (or buyer funded) in the collectibles section. That may help with clearing things up. This is a nice summary but should probably be differently formatted to make it look nicer!

This is only true for pre-funded coins, otherwise it is false. I'd say it is a bad generalization to say that all physical Bitcoin share these weaknesses, because they don't. There are several DIY coins, where you assemble and fund it with whatever address that you want. The only obvious weakness in DIY coins is theft (none of these listed above apply to these) and potentially your own generation scheme (if weak, vulnerable, etc.).

I guess a measure could be implemented to prevent the de-ranking of users if that's desirable. However, I actually don't see that as a bad thing as long as the parameters are right (e.g. slow enough).

As long as pros outweigh cons this is fine.

This question is pointless and so would the follow up questions be (30, 40, 50 years, etc.). Just do your own math, it's really simple: average expected block size x number of blocks a day x number of days a year x number of years that you want. You won't get the most accurate projection, but you will get a rough picture and will avoid redundant questions.

Bump. Where are all the coffee lovers in this forum?

What are you talking about? I'm pretty sure that nothing like that is going to happen.

I wouldn't worry about it, that isn't likely to happen just because you run self-moderated threads.

False. Segwit is implemented in 0.13.0, there are just no activation parameters (i.e. it is not active). They're making some final changes for 0.13.1 which should be released soon.

Well, the same could be asked for a block size increase, could it not (e.g. what if bigger average TX size becomes more popular)? Multisig with P2SH should be safer with Segwit, so I expect even more usage as well.Actually, if more people used multi-sig Segwit should be able to provide a bit more headroom IIRC.
It is expected to see a capacity of anywhere between 1.6 MB to 2 MB on average. The exact numbers are debatable, and yet to be seen in practice (you can/could check testnet blocks).  Someone did the math a few months back on the mailing list; I used to quote that, but can't find it at this time. If I do, I'll post it here.

I have no idea how this thread didn't catch my eye yet. I guess there's too much crap in the section.

---

No, all that this graph and 'calculation' requires is a brain.

Speculating on an ever dying Moore's "law" (which isn't even a law in the traditional sense) can and will lead to trouble.

---

@OP: There's too much crap in this thread that isn't worth reading; please start using self-moderated threads in the future. That said, you're assuming a growth rate in % or have you done your calculations based on X average block size per day/week/month? Did you factor in Segwit? If not, you will have to update that chart.

You mean to rank up higher than legendary?

This one would actually be useful for the forum and 'mean something', ergo I concur.

I disagree with this as it would involve manual work from an admin. The first one can be automated, which is one of the reasons I agree with it.

Same reasoning as the one above. The current administration is busy as it is (even with Cyrus on board).

---

I think the first part of your suggestion in combination with what OP is suggesting would be a nice idea to start with.

No, it would not require a revamp of the trust system.

Do you really want this coin? I'm still watching whether someone else will jump in before deciding whether to bid again.

It were would not be a fallacy, if the information was rather correct or I was the point of the discussion (which I'm not).

This is also incorrect. I don't see any statistical analysis backing up these claims.

You're being fed false information then. I'm not sure what kind of threads you've been reading, but a fair amount of people chose to ignore them (most of the time) for a very good reason.

---

That said, this was also unnecessary and off-topic. You know somebody has a weak standing ground if they have to include others every time they attempt to make an argument. I can't stress this enough as this quite bad for any thread. Unless you have any valid arguments for a hard fork here, please stop wasting everyone's time.

So after a redundant analogy, you resort to ad hominem?  People who have kept a close eye on your posts and who are decent with Bitcoin knows that what you're preaching is usually very wrong. The fork debate has been beaten to death, and you've provided no good reasoning for it.

You've pretty much described yourself. How about you stop attacking other people and start listening for once?

0.28 BTC