and there is the hat trick
2mb dangerous?? ?? ?

yet strangely segwits 4mb not dangerous??

you cant have it both ways

ciyams answer to everything. no real data, no real stats no real scenarios. just insulting anyone whos mindset is not in blockstreams corporate pockets.

guess what. ciyam actually debated 4mb before as a doomsdays scenario.. but as soon as it was realised that segwit(his gods plan) allowed for upto 4mb of data per block.. he changed his ways.

technology didnt change overnight. but the words of his gods bible did.

its funny, any idea that is not blockstreams must be insulted. not using real knowledge or data, but purely emotion.

i really wish he would take 5 minutes out to relax and have a coffee, cool down his emotion and reply using his knowledge. because until recently, he use to actually make logical sense.

for instance. in the last 20 minutes he has made a couple replies that are basically vapour arguments with alot of insults.

if he instead took a 5 minute break to gather his thoughts into an idea. and spent the remaining 15 minutes writing a proper reply that had context. then that reply would (maybe) have been a winning reply.
yet even after asking him many times on different topics to take a break and think up a genuine rebuttle. he does not.

now for my opinion.
bitcoin does not need to reach the scales of Visa by 2017.. bitcoin can achieve this over a 10-15 period. without issue.
and once you realise that a Xblocklimit growing over the years +segwit + sidechains can easily surpass visa worldwide in 15 years, where it took visa 60 years.

that said if we just concentrate on one ledger of visa and one ledger of bitcoin (not sidechain). then bitcoin with just 2mb+segwit
(to avoid manually repeating myself)

so imagine in 15 years bitcoin was 20mb+segwit. that would be on par with visa USA
then imagine the sidechains had similar capacity each

sidechainA comparable to Visa Europe
sidechainB comparable to Visa Asia
sidechainC comparable to Visa australia

but sticking with 1mbsegwit, trying to push hard for sidechains is pushing people into a less secre network.
especially if blockstream only wants to double blocklimit every 8 years.
meaning 4mb+segwit+sidechains in 2026 and 8mb+segwit+sidechains in 2032.. meaning bitcoin wont be on par with visa america until
well into 2040 (24 years)

yea, he and lauda both admit they dont code for bitcoin, but although i do not want to tarnish ciyam with the same brush as lauda, they are both heavily invested in the blockstream corporation control, and most arguments are more about trying to not let the community move away from the corporate agenda

i can see that CIYAM is a smart guy but instead of using his brain. he uses his emotion for the only purpose of protecting blockstreamers.
i have more respect for ciyam then i do for lauda. as ciyam actually knows how to code. and i do actually tailor my rebuttles in favour of him.
yet recently his rebuttles have lacked his intellect and just been pure emotion.
even when i have said its best he takes a break, chill out and think of a deep and meaningful answer. (i tried helping him out)

yet lauda and ciyam prefer to shout out emotional opinions but never back them up using facts or real data or scenarios.

their own doomsday scenarios collapse as soon as its highlighted that their leader (blockstream) is heading in the same direction,

EG summer 2015(pre-roadmap) 'the 2mb bloat is too much to handle' doomsday
turned into
winter 2015(post roadmap) '2mb is ok but it needs to be 2mb of segwit not real block limit changes' bait and switch

yet if all he can do is insult and ignore. then he needs to take a coffee break and realise he has ultimately achieved nothing, nor added anything concrete to the debate. so i will start to laugh when the only people he doesnt have on ignore is a small group of blockstreamers circle jerking each other until they are happily blind to the outside world.

then we will see him start to fight amongst his own friends, while still adding nothing concrete to the debates he tries to involve himself in.

insults and not bothering to supply evidence to back up your opinion..

seems its time to just copy and paste that last sentance to every reply to you. as its getting evident that you cant back up your assumptions without it turning into a insult.

by the way you can insult "franky1" all you like. it is just a name that has no birth certificate. you will not find any human being with a birth certificate of "franky1" so your insults are meaningless. but your lack of answering questions and inability of debunking theories and opinions using numbers and real proof is very revealing.

by the way if you ignore people that have differing opinions. the only people you have left are your oblivious circle jerking friends of blockstream all huddled up in a small little group all trying to act like gods.

goodluck with that.

insults and not bothering to supply evidence to back up your opinion..

maybe time you went back to not programming bitcoin

more insults, littleweight or evidence,
well done. now sit back on your sofa in all your glory and have a cup of coffee and a biscuit

if only you just replied with some better numbers,, but no.. you wont
just becareful when you do throw numbers

because although 2mb+segwit offers a 4mb buffer for growth. please include the 5x decrease in validation time due to libsecp256k1. and also factor in how fast 2000 transactions would grow to 8000 transactions.

i tried to be nice and did not including libsecp256k1 benefits. and just done a flat comparison of basic numbers based on 2015 data
i tried to be nice and suggest that the transaction count would increase by 500tx (250kb) every 6 months instead of 1 year

so feel free to exaggerate, which i know you love, but atleast be honest. especially when i was being generous with my numbers

lol last 28 difficulty changes 5 down 23 up

so is majority= 4% (your empty block majority debate)
so is majority= 18% (your difficulty drop occurance rate)

now over that same year difficulty went from
47,427,554,951
to
158,427,203,767

thats over 300% (i rounded to the nearest 50billion to give you amounts in your favour (336% is more actual)).

so back to my 6 month scenario of miners slowly increasing data load. lets say 1.250mb full.. (knowing it took 4 years to get 500k(2009-2013) and 3 years to get near the 1mb barrier. i am again moving the goal post in your favour with 250k growth in 6 month(500k in 1 year instead of 4 or 3 years), just to give you a fighting chance)

so block validation time goes from 1minute to 1 minute 15 seconds (25%)
difficulty goes up 150% meaning chances of an empty block solve moves to maybe 1minute 30seconds instead of one minute.

thus miners have 15 seconds to start adding unconfirmed transactions before they might get lucky

then move on another 6 months (your best chance of now 1.5mb blocks(numbers still in your favour))
validation time 1 minute 30 seconds, with chance of hitting a block 2minutes.
giving 30 seconds to start adding unconfirmed data

then move on another 6 months (your best chance of now 1.75mb blocks(numbers still in your favour))
validation time 1 minute 45 seconds, with chance of hitting a block 2minutes 30 seconds.
giving 45 seconds to start adding unconfirmed data

meaning that *cough* majority *cough* will go from 4% DOWN because they have MORE TIME between validating a block and adding unconfirmed data, then they did before

all i see is insults.. but you did not debunk my argument about the timing.
and by the way, difficulty grows much faster then the propagation time. so when miners make blocks of 1.001mb (as a safe toe in the water to test propagation time) the difficulty will jump by 10%.
meaning a 0.1% increase in propagation time (well validation time to be specific) vs a 10% difficulty rise, means less chanc of empty blocks.

infact in 20 weeks we can see 100% difficulty increase. yet miner would increase the data included much slower. meaning that in that 1 minute validation time. empty blocks over 20 weeks may become 2 minutes to get lucky. while propagation time may only still be 1minute 10 seconds, or 1 minute 30 seconds.. meaning that there would be less of those lucky empty blocks.

so if you think that miners would jump from 950k filled blocks to 1950kb blocks in only 6 months, causing conflict in regards to empty blocks, before difficulty increases offset that risk. then maybe its time you sat back on your sofa had a cup of tea and use some of your braincells for scenario's instead of insults.

please take a few minutes to think before you speak

last thing to note to ciyam

them 'empty blocks'(minority) that you love so much, are not done out of greed and desire of the pool to only mine empty blocks forever. the actual reason is that when they see a possible solution from a competitor. they begin a new emptyblock and hash it WHILE they validate and check the competitors block.
then when they see its valid they know what transactions to not include in the next block because they are already confirmed in the block they just validated.

so they can then know for sure what unconfirmed transactions are left to put into the nextblock.

the problem is that they are lucky enough to get a solution before they had time to add valid unconfirmed transactions to their new attempt.
this can be seen because ALL the empty blocks were solve in 1minute or less after the previous block.

your argument would be more valid if they had 8-12(10minute average) blocks that were also empty.

have a nice day

just to add my 2 cents to this debate

though i do detest gavin for other reasons, i think that people need to stop being reliant on one overlord. especially if they are getting $50+million and consultations from financial companies.
hearne, gavin AND adam back are all guilty of it.

so thinking blockstream is your lord and savour is just as bad as thinking gavin is.

all people want is 2m+segwit. without 2 years of needless delays and pointless nontechnical based contention. if all 12 implementations had the 2mb+segwit code in by april. then people can upgrade to aprils version of their favourite codebase, be-it core, btcd, bitcoinj, classic, electrum, whatever. it wont matter.

and if people dont want it they wont upgrade.

but by trying to say that everyone should be in the core bandcamp and rely solely on cores roadmap and decision process, goes against everything decentralized.

there should be no single implementation. and no chance of any single person vetoing code. it should be added to all implementations and leave it to the users to adopt or ignore. then if it doesnt get consensus, it just sits there as unused code, or get consensus and become part of bitcoin as a whole.

the real funny thing is. if blockstream thinks people do not want it. they should have no problem including 2mb knowing that it wont ever get consensus. and thus not impact bitcoin in any way.. but by vetoing any chance of code in april they are just delaying any chance of knowing the truth either way

summary for shortminded CIYAM
its not a gavin vs adam debate about control. its about 2mb+segwit for the whole community or not.
trying to meander the debate into a gavin vs adam thing by saying dont follow gavin, dont follow hearn, dont follow garzic but blindly follow blockstream is the opposite of decentralized thinking

PS about earlier debate. out of 100 blocks i presume you looked at... only 4 of those were single tx blocks. (4%) but you keep spouting the "major", "majority" words out like confetti. 4%.. is not major, 4% is not majority

because you love exaggeration here goes.
of all the butterflies in the world, there are 4% in china that are causing all the tornado's around the world

if you dont want a fiat coin carlton, then why are you defending a corporation (blockstream) who are trying to change the vision of bitcoin away from the 2009-2013 ideals. and are trying to implement economics, such as greed and increased fee's. while trying to use those same economics to move people away from bitcoin and onto less secure centralised networks like liquid, LN and sidechains.

if your mindset was truly about a decentralized currency with no authority, i find it strange that you are on your knees praying to the overlord blockstream rather than accepting the different mindset of atleast 100 individual programmers.

MANY programmers veered away from blockstreams roadmap in a decentralised manner, making things like btcd and other implementations. purely because letting one centralized company own the keys to the code and decisions is dangerous. yet i found it real funny that you would disregard, insult and FUDstorm anyone that wanted decentralized code, and instead raise the doomsday scenario of contention by defending the one central party that would cause contention.

you need to reassess what bitcoin means to you because outside of your little blockstream box, you will actually find more then 100 programmers who do not want to give control over to blockstream.

but im guessing you are going to play the ignorance card and waffle on how blockstream has no control. waffle on that if they did have control you would support them because they know best. and waffle on some more pretending your still for decentralization while weirdly trying to defend blockstream in the same reply.

goodluck with that.

just because blockstream hold the commit keys of one of the 12 implementations does not mean we should bow down to only their wishes.
or are you happy that blockstream is an authority and they have god like knowledge. by the way have you read a line of code yet to satisfy your own mind that bitcoin is not wrote in java? or do you have to go run and ask a few blockstreamers to spoonfeed you the info

i think what the OP is trying to say

if Mastercard usually had a 2% fee. and somehow someone hacked a retail terminal to charge 300% fee
EG $6.70 transaction with a $15.70 transaction fee.
comparable to
6.7btc tx out with 15.7btc fee
https://blockchain.info/tx/6fe69404e6c12b25b60fcd56cc6dc9fb169b24608943def6dbe1eb0a9388ed08

now knowing the retailer cant amend this issue as they never received the funds and the funds are alreadygone and its visa that received the fee (bitcoin mining pool received)
there shouldnt just be something at the retailer(wallet) side that prevents over spends. there should be something deeper at the pool/network level that realises that something has gone wrong.

though i still oppose the dire need of transaction fee's to suppliment the block reward(for atleast a decade), those that do want to pay a fee should still be protected from making mistakes. EG. if fee is $1+(0.0025+), then nodes shouldnt relay it. same for miners if fee is $1 (>0.0025) then dont add to block.

that way people can still pay 4cents. or if stupid upto $1 in a race for priority.. but anything more is an obvious mistake especially a $6000 fee.

i love to diversify my investments so might buy some gold.

but usually buying gold when it has gone up at a time when bitcoin has gone down is not the best time to be getting gold. i prefer to buy stuff when bitcoin has risen a bit, as it makes everything i buy cheaper.

in short. people in the gold industry want to dump gold. even at a discount.

seems bitcoin is the better investment

why is Lauda still thinking he is the expert on all things blocksize,

just a couple weeks ago he thought that bitcoin was coded in java

he has no clue about a single line of bitcoin code, i think its time he accepted all his theories get debunked by real scenarios, statistics and better opinions then his own

prove your point. and you win the prize of showing everyone that increasing the buffer is not urgent

show statistics to prove your right.. otherwise its not winning or losing the debate by not proving... its conceding.. (totally different to losing) ..

prove your hollow argument or concede. i already done a screenshot of just 14 example blocks.. so my opinion is not hollow

i am not here to win points. i am not here to be famous. i am here to tell people in the most frank manner there is what is what,
i dont care if people love or hate me. it does not affect my life at all..

so again you can insult all you want to avoid answering a question. but atleast once try showing some statistics

so you concede that not all the miners are making 1tx blocks
so you concede that its not the majority of blocks that are 1tx..

so you are atleast open minded that its a minority that are making 1tx, and its actually the majority that would gain from allowing more transactions in because they are less greedy and are actually in it to help bitcoin succeed. (aswell as getting a little extra amount of t fees for being helpful)

also can you clarify clarify your interpretation of majority.

if you were to put a magic number.. would it be 50%, 75% 95%..
because for the last few months that has been something else you have not really stuck to..

so please in your own words what would you define as a majority

CIYAM ur avoiding showing the statistics.

so show the 'majority' (50% blocks 50% filled) and you win the debate that there is no priority.

if you want to win the priority debate by showing there is no urgency.. prove that using statistics

go on, please win a debate for once using statistics and prove hv_ wrong by showing 50%+ of blocks are 50% or less full

infact.. ill do one better.. 75% of blocks where blocks are less then 75% full.. prove that instead. and you win