En mi opinión, si bitcoinXT, una Shitcoin en toda regla, triunfa, habremos fracasado. En este caso, bitcoinXT matará a Bitcoin.

Voy a seguir tu consejo de no creerme nada de lo que me cuentan, fuente?? ( En Btctalk el hilo sigue en su sitio.)

The exception that breaks the rule being applied to an international decentralized currency , huh?

When and if that reality happens we can revisit its implications on bitcoin. Until than it doesn't follow past historical trends as outlined by BiP 103 and thus we should be skeptical about the advertised possibilities that the future entails. That is what is sensible and rational. I have no doubt there will be certain unique cities that have high speed fiber optic connections and 5G but the concern is node count decreasing to these certain locations only instead of increasing everywhere. This infrastructure may roll out with the next 4-6 years in large metropolitan cities but will take much longer elsewhere.

First of all, it isn't just about you but about the rest of the world as well and the diversity of node count.

Secondly, I seriously doubt you have 200 Mbps persistent upload speed. The US typically averages about ~8Mbps upload and many parts of the world people are limited to 0.5 to 1 Mbps upload. A couple of the devs would have to drop their nodes as an example with Gavin's proposal.

Advertised peak upload speed does not equal reality.

Wrong. It is more about the network bandwidth than about storage (even though we are reaching the maximum with the current technology). The increase has started to slow down over the last few years. The problem is persistent in developing countries.

The concerns of most devs has nothing to do with hard drive space but propagation time, bandwidth limits(especially upload) and mempool problems created by larger blocks.

Exactly what is wrong with that? The developers decided to make a company to profit via something that they're going to build on top of Bitcoin. Are you trying to tell me that if you were in their position, that you would not try to do the same?  
They will increase the block size limit, they just have to reach consensus in regards to how much and when.

See, you're doing it again. Taking things out of context. They put a big IF in that sentence:"IF we see majority has switched.". Obviously they are simply stating if the majority switches then they will to (logic, else they'd be behind). That statement has no words of support in regards to XT.

Wrong. I support bigger blocks (maybe even 8 MB), but I will never go XT (take this as an example).
Also: Supporting 8 MB blocks =/= supporting BIP 101.
People simplify this too much. While someone might support 8 MB blocks, they might not support the additional increases that BIP 101 contains (they are unsustainable).

---

---

Most people do not realize this and think that their opinion is the absolute correct one. Dunning–Kruger effect shines bright around here.

A partir de ahí es todo pura y dura abducción Gaviniana por parte de este buen señor...

Se queja de la centralización en una sola persona ( theymos) de los dos foros de opinión mas importantes del mundo Bitcoin pero parece no querer ver la también centralización en una sola persona ( Gavin) como promotor del inminente futuro del desarrollo de la tecnología mas revolucionaria de este siglo, Bitcoin.

Yeah, it was better that I realized on time that I would say this another few thousand times.
Supporting block size increase =/= supporting XT
Supporting 8 MB blocks (or BIP 101) =/= supporting XT

Unless they state we support 8 MB blocks in addition to XT, then you're taking things out of context for the sake of this tiring political battle between Core and XT.

No, prefiero que todos los devs estén de acuerdo para cualquier cambio.

Excelente característica para una nueva altcoin.

Precio al suelo y mas madera al fuego... bravo Gavin.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.0  

Vamos, que lo del tamaño del bloque es tontería.


P.D.: Compañero dserrano5, cuando tu quieras, yo estoy listo ( ahora si).  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.msg12181691#msg12181691

I wonder, if it's in development for 9 years. Why are the first installers come now, not years ago? There are ALWAYS unexpected events at launch delaying it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter%27s_law

We saw this with Crypti, we will see it with Ethereum and with Maidsafe as well.

entertainment, you seem like a proficient person with Maidsafe. Would you be willing to tell me more via Skype?

Oh my, nine years in development. Didn't know that.. That's hard to believe..

I've been reading up on MaidSafe, they are building something similar to what Crypti is doing (Dapps) named SAFE Network. The SAFE network would be a platform for apps and programs that could be accesses by the network users. In their system docs paper they state:


It's become a race to whoever gets there first, gets all the fame. There's also Ethereum with their millions of dollars who are planning the same thing.