No, this does not solve anything. Basically if we had a minimum and maximum within a possible projection, while speculating, Gavin would opt for a choice near the maximum. We can not predict the future and the more we try to predict (more time, e.g. years) the more we are wrong.
Pieter Wuille actually made a better suggestion (17.7% increase per year). However, this is not that good if we start with a 1 MB limit because we would reach a maximum of 8 MB in 2030. It would be interesting if we had a initial 8 MB limit and a 17.7% yearly increase.

Actually I disagree, and so does Gavin (among other people). Blockchain systems do not scale properly, nor were they designed to do so. We can't just infinitely increase the block size, this will just lead to other problems. We need other solutions that are going to be built on top of the blockchain or that are going to work completely off-chain.

---

---

Demonstration of the lack of scalability with Bitcoin:
At 1 MB per block, Bitcoin has a average of ~3 transactions per seconds (see D&T thread). Visa has an average of 2,000 tps (a maximum of 56,000).  Just to reach the average that Visa handles (not the maximum, nor peak times) everyday we would need ~666.6MB blocks right now.
Just for reference, we would need ~18.6666 GB blocks to be able to process the same amount of transactions that Visa can.

---

---

Tl;dr:
Bitcoin can't scale well on its own. We need to do everything, i.e. increase the block size, implement sidechains, the lightning network, payment channels. Everything.

This is not going to happen. Stop spreading propaganda. Hypothetically speaking, even if it does happen, this is why there are established altcoins that you can use.
Off-chain solutions will solve such problems. Besides, for sidechains and the lightning network to properly work, the block size limit has to be raised. Saying that we will be stuck at 1 MB forever is pretty much wrong.

This really depends on the sender, the value and whatnot. If you bought online (outside of EU) then you probably are going to have to pay taxes. Since it is imported from within the EU, you are not going to  have to pay customs duties. More information can be found in that link.

Yes, you were. My initial thought process couldn't get an answer to who might be doing this, rather than what that fraudulent activity was. This post provides a great answer to both question. People pseudo nodes and similar activity.

People can't agree on this part alone, thus it is hard to expect that the 'crowd' will reach consensus on something more important (e.g. block size limit).

---

---

Exactly. A lot of people misinterpret the words of others when they show support for something.
supporting bigger blocks =/= supporting XT/BIP 101
supporting 8 MB blocks =/= supporting XT/BIP 101

Even supporting BIP 101 does not necessarily mean that you support XT.

Moore's law? It looks like you aren't up to date with that one.
It is going to get worse from here, until the transition to something entirely new. The growth factor in BIP 101 is not sustainable and people should be aware of this. That's one of the main problems.

This explains it as well. My quote was from Wikipedia, as I failed at finding the article that I have recently read.

Exactly. One has to pay attention to the date of registration.

OP if you take a look at forum statistics, you're going to see that the situation right now is okay. There have been 12616 registrations in July, but 38298 in March, which shows a highly decreased amount of accounts being created. This is not unusual for this forum as it doesn't even use email verification.

XT pretty much solved nothing. They are trying to have things their way. The proposal was rejected by Core and thus they decide to program XT into an altcoin. BIP 101 is not sustainable, unless someone thinks that bandwidth and block propagation times can handle 50% yearly increases.
Even if we disregard all of that, there is still no consensus whatsoever. The discussion about various ideas has turned into a discussion about Core vs XT.

Then why start another thread about it? Why start it in the wrong section? At least you could have done that right.
Obviously there are a handful of individuals who believe that BIP 101 and XT are the right way forward (no; unsustainable growth). Ignoring problems doesn't usually make them go away.

As far as I know, the BIP 101 is not sustainable (doubling every two years). This is just a conclusion based upon information that I've found through the months (not research). I'm pretty sure that developing lands and especially China can't handle the doubling. The problem isn't really the storage, but rather network bandwidth (i.e. increased orphan rates).
Wouldn't BIP 100 be better, having a soft limit between 1MB to a maximum of 32 MB?

Fraudulent activity?

If you think that North Korea doesn't have a military force because people do not have food, think again. Let me pull up some statistics here:
North Korea has:

• About ~690k active military personnel (ranked 5th in the World)
• Total naval power of 1 061 (ranked 1st, more than 2x of what USA has)
• Aircraft strength ranked 10th
• Tank strength ranked 7th

However, some of these might be estimates and are just based on publicly available information. Here is a comparison of South Korea and North Korea.
The country should not be underestimated.

Only facts and evidence. Ad hominem should be completely ignored and so should most assumptions that aren't backed without evidence. We can all just agree that there are shills on both sides and that it is nothing new to this forum. Both sides have switched from discussing to fighting it out (trying to slander each other).

I would not call them patches, since they were rejected by Core because of their flaws? Unless Hearn fixed everything and tested on his own (which I doubt). There is more information related to this on reddit.

Well you would ask for one to asses the situation specifically tied to cryptocurrencies which would require real research in order for sufficient evidence to surface. I'm not exactly sure how one could call all of that with one word.

No. I was trying to say that while the decision will not necessarily be based on flawed logic, it is very likely (if we "just let things happen").

---

---

That was not my intention. I was using that as an example (in this case) of possible crowd manipulation. I was not implying, nor intentionally trying to insult anyone's intelligence. I can't be a judge of that, as it is almost impossible to be objective about it.

I'm going to assume that you've never had any sociology classes? The wisdom of a crowd is biased and it is much easier to manipulate. They are a lot of ways for one to manipulate a crowd to agree with a controversial idea, thus we should not rely on the crowd's 'wisdom' to pick the right way forward (Core or XT as an example, in this scenario). Crowd manipulation is often used in politics and business. Here's a example of a technique: To get a crowd to agree to a controversial idea (e.g. blacklisting), you first start talking about things that the crowd agrees with or believes in. This way you are starting to build up trust, and then you can proceed to start talking about the more disagreeable stuff. There was actually a good study about this not long ago.

---

---

So back to the topic now. Obviously many have appealed to authority in this debate, which is wrong. Just because someone has a strong position or reputation, that doesn't necessarily mean that what they are preaching is probably correct. The argument from authority is not a logical argument. The problem is that people are not seeing the obvious and are being manipulated. XT has implemented a few other things that they present as "features" and people are buying it. I'm pretty sure that Hearn would be able to sell you blacklisting in the future if XT was to take off (which is problematic).
This is why it is necessary to try and have a healthy discussion and keep the ad hominem and similar nonsense aside, else we will not be moving forward.

Okay, obviously people do not understand this. The number of nodes that XT has is really irrelevant. Most of them were made using trial accounts (cloud solutions). Neither is a single website important.
Although it is worth noting that the manipulation was clearly shown yesterday. The number of nodes spiked to ~1250 before going down to 877 within the same day.

I'm actually seeing this right now:

---

---

The reddit post does explain it.

I'm not even going to comment it just because of two simple things:
A) You're a newbie.
B) You've made the thread in the wrong section.

Off-topic:
No. The sudden jump to ~1290 clearly shows us that someone is manipulating the node count and that it should be disregarded. It quickly went down to 877.

---

---

The question is how is this relevant to the original point of this thread? There obviously is no censorship and they are pretty tolerant. If someone stricter was in charge all of these posts would get wiped.
So essentially OP made an assumption without proper evidence in the code? Even though Hearn was advocating blacklisting even in 2014, that does not necessarily mean that it has already been implemented (no). However, that does not mean that it won't get implemented either.

I would like to add that I support the idea of repeated offenders being punished. While what you suggested might be a bit too harsh, some members are constantly doing this and they need a warning.
So many threads are popping up in the B. Discussion section.  It would not be a issue if they actually contained something useful, or evidence to back up the posters claim.

You know, this debate has become very tiring. As Antonopoulos said, the debate is full of ad hominem, it has involved attacking people rather than discussing ideas and the use of ideological aphorisms without sufficient evidence. I am guilty of that as anyone else (his words; apply to me as well). You can't expect me to support discussing XT and trolling in a SPECULATION thread about Bitcoin and Gold.

---

---

People are twisting everyone's words for their own sake. Antonopoulos said that consensus is very important and that we should be implementing everything (i.e. bigger blocks, sidechains, lightning network, payment channels). He did not say that he supports XT (there is a thread stating that he does).

I'm not even sure what to comment on this. That link does not prove either assumption that you've made. You're spreading false information regarding me (I will not comment the others). I was actually advocating for the increase a few months back in a huge thread (that was over 100 pages long). I never said that the block size limit should not be increased. While I do support a increase (which is not urgent as some think), I do not support XT at all. There is a difference.

As for the "censorship", there are two possible situations: a) either you are not able to comprehend what real censorship is; b) or you have forgotten that this is a privately owned forum.
IMHO this is off-topic.

---

---

Thank you sir. Supporting a block size increase (in general, not specific to any limit) =/= supporting XT.

---

---

Obviously for you to in order to use their technology/product, you are probably going to have to pay fees. However, if people really think that these fees are going to be high, think again. If they introduce a model with high fees, nobody is going to use their product. Besides, nobody is forcing you to do transactions off chain. Pay the normal (or higher, whichever is necessary) fee and you aren't going to have a problem transacting Bitcoin during heavy amount of TX traffic.

No. I have not stated my stance towards the discussed there. My conclusion was pulled from reviewing the last few pages of the thread. The last few pages have literally everything in them, from ad hominem to censorship complains.
That is really not related to "Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP." (speculation forum).