That's an opinion too, but development must go on.
For the simple minded, bigger blocks will do, but if you project the possible and likely outcomes, it's quite a fatal move.
SegWit was a step forward, but development will have to face more bugs and problems to solve. It's like combustion engines, they convert 100% heat into 40% moving energy. Quite inefficient, but the efficiency did and will rise over time (if we don't make the complete jump to 95+% electrical engines in the near future).
In my opinion, there is no "better" Bitcoin. Bitcoin is BTC and all of it's offsprings combined. The only true intention of Ver, Wright, Wrong and any of those shady hostile characters is that someone buys the story of the "right" Bitcoin and joins his argumentation army. They don't want to get their hands dirty while grabbing your money.

EDIT: Also, when i can buy stuff or service with an entity, it's money. So far for the wet dreams of the roach.

You miss the real point.  Money is supposed to be a constant and unchanging.  Things like the noble metals (physical silver and gold) resist entropy.  Bitcoin FACILITATES entropy.  It's the #1 worst form of 'money' ever created.  If something starts out as some completely arbitrary abomination and randomly transforms into some other new, completely arbitrary abomination, it's obviously not fungible or money.

"Fungible" does not mean tumbling coins in some Albanian mixer to try and obfuscate outputs, it means the object has actual, inherent properties that don't mutate at random.  Fungibility is a requirement of money and no imaginary, digital shitcoin has it.  Physical metals are money and digital shitcoins are scam hoaxes pretending to have the traits of metals when they don't.

Thanks Hairy. He insists on making it an argument about whether or not a piece of software has the ability to act immorally on its own, which is of course, never what the argument was about.

breher: just because you ignore a defense doesn't mean its not a defense. I'm tired of playing these word games with you. Look at the scoreboard: your favorite altcoins are dying slow but measurable deaths because they were built on the fraudulent premise that they are the real bitcoin. Had they not tried so hard to blatantly piggyback off bitcoin's good name, perhaps they would both be doing better than they currently are. They would almost certainly be better respected by the general community.

Simply because of increasing privacy? Is that what you mean? Will the improved privacy through this soft fork enough to classify Bitcoin alongside Monero, Dash, ZCash, and other privacy coins?


Hence the speculation that the algorithm was not included by Satoshi Nakamoto when he designed Bitcoin due to Schnorr's existing patent back then.


But is it comparable to the almost zero fees provided by the Lightning Network? Although LN of course is primarily designed for smaller and day to day transactions and is basically off-chain.


Exactly in a manner that NeuroticFish has shown?

Convert your shitcoins to Bitcoin in one easy step
https://medium.com/@relayx/relayx-product-updates-making-bitcoin-sv-more-user-friendly-than-ever-before-3d4d3b2eecda

ooh congrats hv_ hero member notbad.

Roger Ver is unarguably one of the most important figures in the entire history of Bitcoin. Taaki* and Karpeles were each indisputably leaders in their time. Leadership is transitory, and irrelevant when discussing the inherent properties of a protocol.

* the salaciousness of Taaki is predicated on each individuals' view of Taaki's actions.


Let's revisit this paragraph in the immediate aftermath of Blockalypse II.

Hilarious to quote a fraud who evaded his own country due to his tax..............frauds.
Hilarious to quote a fraud who was sentenced several times for contempt of Court.
Hilarious to quote a fraud who plagiarise research papers.
Hilarious to quote a fraud who loses his cases when he pretends to be the victim of libel.
Hilarious to quote a fraud associated with a convict.

I want to, they won't allow it. Only choice is to go to another planet, and no doubt they'd follow everyone there and start ordering everyone about again



quit voting long ago



no I am not, I refuse to take part in something I never asked to be a part of, especially if it is thinly disguised bullying



that's not how this garbage system is marketed to the voters, but it's true: you can change something so small through the electoral system that it makes almost no difference, and gives the political class plenty of advanced warning about how to make counter-reactions that will erase any political gains the electorate can make



tech is a tool. tools can be powerful. powerful tools always, every time they were created and spread, changed the world.

ok, let's call it "peer-to-peer trade"

or "peer-to-peer governance"

it's pretty obvious that rules or consensus can be achieved person-to-person, so you're wrong



Bitcoin already is a peer-to-peer system, with rules and without rulers. If you don't want to call that anarchy, that's fine, but you're a joke if you think it could possibly be used (or have users) if there were no rules.


Bitcoin has rules. You don't like them.
You don't have to use Bitcoin, no-one's asking you (or asking you to stay here on Bitcointalk.org)

in short: if you don't like it, fuck off (I predict you continue to come back whinging about something forever, nice life you have there )