Perhaps the wording should read:
"4) More fees potentially collected by miners on each block"
I'd also suggest a similar tweak for number 7, but then it ends up sounding the same as #1:
"7) More capacity to accommodate potential wider adoption"
I agree with points. Quite of those 'pros' are directly or indirectly related to the first one. It does not make sense to list them all separately. CON: if the user base ever shrinks it will put a unnecessary burden on a smaller user base.
It won't. Pro: less reliance on side chains to handle micro transactions.
This is not a pro and not related to OP. Con: less spam protection.
Elaborate? |
|
|
|
That's a touch dramatic.
You've missed a very important piece of information in their signature: [ANN] Rimbit - We removed mining - As Bitcoin continues to fail, Rimbit will pick up the pieces
What a joke. It's not like we'd be lost without their nodes.
Exactly. Especially, not now when one can run a pruned node easily (lower storage requirements). |
|
|
|
|
For that to happen almost everyone would have to agree to those rules. Keep in mind that almost everyone is against this. Something like this would most likely have a catastrophic result indeed. You should avoid people who are open to changing the fundamental rules of Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
The anonymity one for me, that's one of the biggest misunderstandings about bitcoin
Well technically you could remain unknown and almost undetectable. If you buy Bitcoins via cash and avoid services that require personal details you are good to go. later known it cost 0.0001 BTC default fees for each.
One should not use any kind of default fees. Fees should be calculated so that a right recommended satohshi/byte fee is included. Currently understand how it is almost exactly the opposite and everyone can view your transactions live not just your bank/law enforcers.
It is not even close to "exactly the opposite". Anyone can view that the transactions have been made, yet they have no idea who made them. |
|
|
|
|
Interesting free premium pick. However, the odds are quite low for this and I'm certain that it will go through (well, it should; there's always a chance that it won't). I'll most likely not bet on it but will consider the premium picks again. Let's hope for a full recovery tonight.
|
|
|
|
this is even more slippery slope, anything can be changed via a soft fork without user even notice it
Untrue. This is off-topic. By the way, you won't get large enough blocks, because majority of miners will simply orphan them
No. With this blockchain issue though which will occur again after few more years, some of the altcoins will be looked at by business organizations. Stability is needed and issues like these (uncertainty in the solution) will only hurt bitcoin if not now, in the future.
With or without a 2 MB block size limit, these "blockchain issues" will happen. This is because there are people who are willing to and are able to attack the network with spam. During the spam last week I had no trouble transacting at all because I've used proper fees. The network was designed as such. he statement makes it sounds like changing the system to support 2MB blocks would cause miner transaction fees to increase regardless of the actual size of the block.
Exactly. We can't really know that the amount of fees will get increased. It is just an assumption I guess. |
|
|
|
Mostly its not possible to find out who's bitcoin address and it is good that this is not possible because that will also ruin peoples life.
Nonsense. Please stop posting if you don't know what you're talking about. This would not ruin anyone's life at all. The only way that this could really affect you negatively is if you did illegal things. I doubt that is possible imo, They can link between your wallets if you do concurrent transactions involving both of them but I don't think they can know what wallet they belong to at least directly.
Please read the whole thread. You really didn't bother to read the first post in the thread, right? Sounds like you only have read the topic and wrote something in here fast.
Some people tend to only read the first one and there are some that don't even do that. It does become pretty obvious if there was some discussion in the thread though. |
|
|
|
The Rule was exactly about "be Italian" to post in Italian section.
In this mode the Rule was a pure racist.
The local sections are for people to talk solely in specific languages. These sections are not on a per country basis. You are completely wrong here. In this moment there are streng Rules about correct use of Italian Language in text
and no more "be Italian" request.
The general rules (on found in this section) should apply to all sections. Additionally local moderators can introduce some rules as long as they don't contradict with the general rules. This has nothing to do with the 'racist rule'. I don't care about Italian laws. |
|
|
|
This is a totaly to laugh and to declared as a racist Rule. After my claim, this rule seems was changed to better, but still with a streng attention to "Italian Language usage".
So a local sub-forum made for Italians who speak Italian is racist?  I did not know 'Italian' was a race. 
This is all written in the forum rules: 9. Discussions in the main boards must be in English. All other language discussions should be posted in the appropriate Local board.
26. Local thread rules, if stated properly when the thread was started, specific enough and don't conflict with the forum rules, have to be followed.
All this rules needs a translation to english, and a Warning about specific range of action to language section.
Non English Rules must have a warning about English and other section Rules.
No. This is a English speaking forum. I do not go to some random Russian forums and demand translations and neither should you do so here. Any local Rules need specific the main difference with global forum rules shortly and clear.
That's is up to each individual local moderator. If you have a problem with some local section then talk to the sections moderator.
Is this supposed to be about you, and what rules you broke or the problems that you have with the forum? You're derailing your own thread. |
|
|
|
Wow. I goes to search about "Self Advertising" Rule.
Will You help me?
It is simple. Do not post your service in other people's threads. How it is possible to a so big "Rules-Nazi" as You to hijacking this thread with a so bullshit offtopic like this?
This offtopic is a true 2 in 1 trolling attempt under the eyes of all Moderators.
No. His post is actually very on topic with examples of your posts (haven't judged them). Staff should just talk to this guy about what specifically you want him to do differently.
I don't see a need to ban the guy..
It is not up to the staff to explain the rules in baby steps to everyone. We can and obviously will help out, but if the user refuses to follow them or is unable to understand the rules then there is not much that we can do. |
|
|
|
I'd say it's a particularly bad point. We've been soft forking in changes left, right and center. Is the BIP process a slippery slope, too?
We have been soft forking features and developing Bitcoin further. I don't think that we could see a possible threat in this. why don't increase block size to bigger size so we don't need another hard fork because i'm sure hard fork will be harder because bitcoin'll be more popular and it means more miners, pool, company and so on.
Because it is not safe to do; look at the list of cons. Resource usage would be even greater, the problem with a dangerous TX would also be expanded and such. Even a 2 MB block size limit is possibly unsafe without constraining limits. |
|
|
|
Meanwhile they are 66% of network left that are running Bitcoin Core code.
Do you not read what I write to you or is your brain unable to comprehend what I'm saying? I'm not certain which the case is. The number of nodes is not a reliable metric, especially not in a short time frame. This is because people can jump-start a lot of nodes in a very small amount of time. Additionally, it is possible to run fake nodes as well. If it gets at 50% what that means? They've lost majority ?
It means nothing. Exactly nothing, especially when a Sybil-attack is being promoted. He's just like me, he's just sick of the bullshit.
Welcome to the club. |
|
|
|
Bump to 2MB could signalize: raising cap forever is okay. Changing hard rules anytime is fine.
Getting on a slippery slope. With large enough blocks, only high-end datacenter servers could participate in Bitcoin.
You make a point here. This could signalize that anything could be changed (e.g. supply), which I'm certain almost nobody wants. after the 75% trigger plus a grace period, your "holy war" wouldn't go very far.
Stop talking about BIP109. If we are talking about a 2 MB block size limit then we are talking about the pure limit (i.e. no additions). We do not know what the consensus threshold is, so this is irrelevant. you're underestimate Ethereum.
Please don't talk about shitcoins here. ETH realistically has a value lower than Doge (can be used for more things right now). Might a higher b size lead to a better miner distribution ? (Firewall issue,...)
No. If anything it could lead to more centralization. |
|
|
|
This service would even be better if people who bought a premium pick and lost that day got the next one for free. Just a suggestion. 
OP your website seems broken for me. I don't see the past picks here.  |
|
|
|
Well, the first pick is a bust.  lets see the second match its currently in the okey situation but we still need 2 goals  Second pick is a bust.  |
|
|
|
Pro : Business can operate with less fear of being outed from the network because high fees
Pro : Renewed trust in the development process and in the network scalability capacity
Pro : More adoption
Pro : BTC value will rise
i will try to consolidate and/or add these points to OP ASAP.
This is all directly or indirectly a result from (or is related to) pro #1 or pro #2. Listing these separately does not make sense (this is why I grouped the resource usage). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
