So go ahead and demonstrate what you have done that actually *matters* in the last ten years.

(yes - I have a post to show what I have done but I am going to wait for you to show me first as I somehow doubt you have done anything of any significance at all apart from trolling on forums)

@seriouscoin - you are a serious racist.

No-one in this forum actually care much for your rubbish.

But go ahead and post more rubbish - it only shows why you have negative trust and why no-one gives a fuck about your retarded views.

Seriously - you don't know the first thing about me but presume to actually know all my motives?

So either you are some kind of "genius mind-reader" or just a "retarded bitcointalk.org poster".

Hmm.. my bet is on the latter.

Bitcoin will *never* scale up to Visa or Mastercard and anyone who thinks so is really "kidding themselves".

In the world of "remittance" Bitcoin can be king but in the world of general transactions it is never going to get there.

When will you guys realise that "normal people" actually *want* reversible transactions and the safety of their banks. They are *never* going to want to lose their money to scammers who want to take advantage of irreversible payments.

It is so funny that Bitcoin fanatics just seem to forget all about "customers" (probably because most of them are scammers trying to steal their customers money).

It will be limited to only those platforms that support AT but *yes* we are working on modifying the ACCT AT to provide just that.

That's the best you can do?

I am disappointed - at least previously you got some things right (such as the fact that I live in China and am married to a Chinese woman) but now you are rather lacking in anything coherent at all. Are you too drunk to actually keep trolling?

Maybe you'd better have a sleep and get back to trolling me tomorrow.

(btw - if you'd bothered to even look at my profile you'd know that I am *not* a VIP)

Extremely rude people with negative trust equals *who cares what the fuck they post as it is of no concern nor importance*.

As you can see no-one is really interested in your view at all - but don't let that stop you - please continue to make an ass of yourself with your ridiculous posts.

Every rubbish thing you say about me just makes me laugh more about just how ignorant you are - so let's see if you can make me LOL again (you've managed to do that at least 3 times already today).

A first very simplistic "application" using CIYAM with a blockchain has been successfully tested.

The application doesn't really do anything except let you update your own User record although it does include an encrypted "email" field (so that data encryption and decryption have been tested at the same time).

Although the application itself isn't much to write home about the fact that separate CIYAM server instances are now able to synchronise both their blockchains and blockchain applications is a big step forward.

In the next week the work will be focused on "rewinds" which is how a CIYAM blockchain system will handle "re-orgs" for its applications.

I don't really care what rubbish you want to post about me but it is rather obvious that most of the people that are posting here don't actually care about Bitcoin at all but instead just want to either post for the sake of their ad-sig or big-note themselves and "breast beat" how everyone needs to do things the way that *they say* it should be done (who are the same kind of people who were attacking Gavin last week about the 20MB limit funnily enough).

Well good luck with that attitude and am sure you'll win friends and influence people all over the world.

As Bitcoin cannot be used for anything in China other than speculation (via the exchanges) or by selling Bitcoin from mining if you take out the mining then my guess is that Bitcoin would quickly disappear from China (but maybe that is the agenda that some are seeking).

When they have indicated that a more modest increase in max. block size (such as the 8MB that Gavin has stated he would accept) would be acceptable then why do you keep trying to turn this "storm in a teacup" into some sort of  Others vs. China battle?

If China ends up abandoning Bitcoin then I really don't see how that would be any sort of victory for Bitcoin at all.

China is not the only country in the world with bandwidth issues so I guess next you want to get rid of any developing countries as well and after a while pretty much Bitcoin will just be USA coin. To that I say - no thanks.

You do understand that >50% of the hashing rate comes from Bitcoin mining farms located in China?

If they decide to not adopt a change then put simply *no change will occur* (as they will still be creating over 50% of the blocks making any 90% consensus simply impossible to reach) so chest beating is hardly going to help here.

This is not about politics but about finding a practical solution that will let Bitcoin grow without causing a collapse in the hashing strength or confidence in the Bitcoin blockchain.

It has nothing to do with connection equipment and everything to do with the Great Chinese Firewall and a smaller increase in block size was seen as been acceptable by both the exchanges in question so it actually seems to me that an 8MB block size limit will satisfy all parties (as Gavin has already said he'd be okay with 8MB).

Cutting out the Chinese would not actually be a very good idea for something that is designed to be a world-wide revolution in person to person payments and a non-inflationary store of value.

No - the current software has the fixed limit built in so they'd need to change software.

Having been a forum member before ad-sig campaigns even existed I find it hard to actually believe that "any serious forum members" actually *need to do that* (they managed to post before those even existed without a problem so why do they suddenly "have to be paid" to post now?).

What you don't get is that the major Chinese exchanges are very tightly tied to major Chinese mining operations and those nodes *matter* (as the majority or at least close to it of all Bitcoin hashpower is in China).

As has been pointed out in so many of these topics Gavin is no longer suggesting 20MB but instead 4MB or 8MB (but carry on regardless).

Unfortunately 100% consensus is probably never going to happen.

There might be people still running the earliest version of Bitcoin and apart from them finding out that their software is no longer usable there is not much you can do if they stubbornly decide they are "never going to upgrade".

I think that 90% is actually a quite reasonable figure to hard-fork and as long as there is plenty of notification about the change then I don't see it as being such a big deal.

Also note that there is no rush to upgrade as the 90-95% figure is in regards to the last 1,000 blocks (giving people a fair bit of time to upgrade).

Is that clear enough (okay - not an exact mention of a figure but clearly indicating that a lower figure would be acceptable IMO)?

Not sure now why I had thought I had read any exact figures now - probably confused by all the FUD being posted myself.

They do state that the reason they think it is too big is due to potential orphan block issues due to poor bandwidth between China and the rest of the world (as I previously mentioned).

They also stated that 4MB would be fine and 8MB might be okay also (so you didn't read it properly either).

Unfortunately this forum has no longer become a platform for any sort of meaningful communication - so even those actually trying to do so are just lost beneath all the FUD and ad sigs useless posts.