Please provide proof of this (i.e. video links to Gavin and Andreas at the very least saying just that as I certainly don't recall either of them saying it).

It should be noted that this kind of low fee zero confirmation theft does increase in probability as the mempool size increases - so a more popular Bitcoin will have more of these sort of double spends than a less popular one (another good reason why we shouldn't be so eager to make Bitcoin such a popular payment method and increase the block size).

And this is where you are getting things confused - if people can easily get away with out paying for something without any consequence then they will do it (that is human nature and I'm sure you can find many social studies that will back up this statement).

If you simply do a tx with an extremely low fee then it is entirely possible (even likely) that despite the tx being not rejected as dust it won't be confirmed before it is dropped from the mempool (and making blocks bigger isn't going to fix that either - a swimming pool will always fill up with water no matter how much bigger you make it).

Thus unless your coffee seller has checked that the fee looks good enough to confirm within a day (and how does the seller actually really know this?) the coffee buyer can enjoy their coffee and the next day be able to do it again (presumably they would probably not frequent the same coffee shop for fear of being caught but let's just assume that this person is a tourist and so doesn't care about coming back again).

It could well be that not enough of the testnet peers have upgraded - I think the next step is to play with -regtest rather than -testnet (so you are mining your own blocks).

Actually it is very useful right now (as both a store of value and means to send funds nearly anywhere in the world fast and cheaply) and being popular is not why one wants to be involved with disruptive technologies such as Bitcoin.

You don't even show ID to buy a coffee (at least not as yet) so how on earth are people risking going to jail by not paying?

We don't seem to have jails packed full of credit card fraudsters either for that matter.

The point is not an immediate double spend but simply a tx that will confirm too slowly due to a lack of fee (or too small a fee) so that the "double spend" will happen well after you've left the coffee shop (when the original tx is dropped from the mempool).

The core devs have all recommended not to trust zero confirmations yet seemingly you know better than them?

It is not fine for any size transaction and I'm surprised you would make such a silly statement.

Can you make a transaction with 0.00000001 BTC?

(and I mean literally yourself not a miner)

It has also been pointed out hundreds of times that you can't rely upon zero confirmations so your coffee is going to go cold before you will be allowed to drink it (and if changes are pushed that would allow for tx replacement with a fee then it would be child's play to cheat your coffee vendor).

Apparently it is just because you say it is - just like the world is really flat.

It is a pity that people want to worship Satoshi and don't recognise the mistakes that he made (little-endian numbers in txs being one of the worst).

Moore's law never applied to bandwidth which is the problem that Bitcoin has in regards to scaling (not storage or processing power).

You are just making up stats now.

I was using BTC to move money from Australia to China years ago and I actually profited from the remittance (which is something unheard of in moving money from one country to another).

So I moved AUD to China and got more RMB than the AUD/CNY exchange rate at the time - do you understand that?

Yes - when I sent the 200 BTC back to the forum do you think I paid a fee?

I am not telling anyone "what they should think" but instead just asking people to take a good look at "the reality" of Bitcoin as it stands now.

Again - no organisation is paying me for my opinion (but welcome to try and bribe me if you like).

I pay 0% fees for my BTC txs - so why are yours costing 10-15%?

(we are clearly not arguing about BTC at all but now some imagined fee percentage that you invented)

To expand on what I am saying I think that you need to consider this:

Companies like Western Union would go out of business if people just used Bitcoin for remittance (real *disruption* IMO).

It is becoming apparent that there are paid shills participating in every topic to do with the block size debate.

Apparently Mike Hearn simply cannot let a "dead horse" die.

I do not work for any company (other than my own) and am not sponsored to make any statement but I will make this statement.

Bitcoin is not suitable for "coffees" and why should it be (as practically no-one in the world is paid in Bitcoin)?

What Bitcoin is very suitable for is "remittance' (sending money overseas) yet so far it has virtually no market share in that sphere (which it should dominate).

Can we start focusing on remittance rather than coffees?

Again you are spouting nonsense as seems to be your thing.

I will unwatch this topic also as I have no interest in reading any more of your stupid posts.

If any of the people in this topic actually want to be taken seriously then you really need to rethink your topics.

Spouting nonsense and attacking people might be fun but it doesn't actually change the minds of anyone that is actually intelligent.

(perhaps this is a Donald Trump thing)

I really don't see the problem.

Currently I can use Bitcoin to move huge amounts of money from one country to another without resorting to "bags of cash" or "loads of jewellery" yet somehow even though Bitcoin is not even been properly used for just this purpose (i.e. remittance) we have to panic and increase the block size so that people can buy coffees for BTC.

There are very few people in the world that are even paid in BTC - so why the fuck do we need to sell coffees in BTC?

Why can't you guys wait for BTC to be successful in the very area it *should kick ass in* (which is remittance) before you demand your *coffees* need to be able to be paid for in BTC?

You believe that spouting nonsense covers things?



(and yes I am going to ignore you)

I see - so you have nothing further to offer to this topic (as I suspected) - I will unwatch it now so you can enjoy chatting to yourself tomorrow.

@OP - I hope you can see the friends that you are gathering.

CIYAM is not a sidechain at all (it is actually a software engineering platform that includes blockchain processing amongst many other things).

CIYAM can work with Bitcoin or with alts (or with no blockchain at all) - so it is not involved in any way about what changes may or may not happen to any of them.

If you want to have a meaningful debate then it would help if you educated yourself rather than spout off nonsense.