Most people live from paycheck to paycheck and don't use / hold any of these. Not sure which planet you live on.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  Straight away it's "political posturing" and I have to try to fight the urge to go on the offensive.  It's entirely possible to express that belief in a less pejorative manner if you try.  People seem to take issue with the way the BIP101 leaders launched their proposal.  Why is it immediately an illicit and suspect act to confer with mining pools to see how they react to it?  If you had written a proposal of your own, would you not have bothered to consult with them to see if anyone would actually support it first?  Sounds like common sense to me.  Would it not be fairer to say that while you don't approve of the manner in which they chose to consult with the miners, it was helpful in getting their proposal off the ground.  And while you might perceive it to be a "power grab", you recognise that others might see it in a more innocent light?  But again, this is just discussing the personalities and not the actual issue of blocksize and doesn't really get us anywhere, so moving on.

I see BIP101 as a simple and straightforward solution to an issue I perceive with capacity, but concede that there is a possibility that it could potentially jeopardise decentralisation in future if left unchecked.  However, I understand and recognise that you see BIP101 primarily as a threat to decentralisation and see less of an issue with capacity.  So the question is, what in your mind wouldn't be a threat to decentralisation while still conceding some ground on providing a little more capacity?  What compromise can we move towards?  Can we find some common ground in BIP100 or upal's BIP1xx proposal?  Introducing a dynamic aspect where the blocksize can be increased or decreased based on what the network is handling sounds reasonable.  Is that something you would find more acceptable than a preemptive and continuous increase?

Doesn't that sound more constructive than "hypocrisy" and "nonsense"?

It's either this or a little niche experiment and no more.

The belief itself may be a case of "everything appears a nail to the man holding a hammer", in the sense that people who have never interracted with any other aspect of economy besides the supermarket counter may genuinely imagine that's what economy is. Still, that makes no difference.

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about they thing but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

again, most people agree Bip102 doesn't jeopardize security , but the devs would rather do nothing.
Doing nothing until there is a crisis and then rushing an emergency fix seems more dangerous than going with a reasonable approach now and testing the hell out of it.  And this is preferable to jeopardizing adoption too.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Actually, I believe I and several others have been trying quite hard to have a constructive conversation about the merits of BIP101. The problem is assuming that respondents won't be hostile as a result. In that sense, I think your characterization is very inaccurate. Dishonest arguments are the name of the game here, unfortunately.

Populist arguments are with us because the issue is a) controversial and b) highly technical. The easiest way to defend your position, therefore, is to avoid discussing technical merit and focus on making your opponent's proposal appear to be scummier (dictators! broken consensus! not acting in a timely enough manner! blockstream shills! CIA plants!) than your own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard


No more arguing with you. You are helpless.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

Also, but the sole responsible is Core devs not delivering what the market asks in a timely manner.


Actually yes. You should go back read your history books. No one will treat bitcoin as a reserve currency if it cannot be used a currency first.

Both goes together, you should know that. No one is going to buy and hold if no one will be able to use these bitcoins at some point for either  buying a cafe or whatever else. Speculators speculate on real market movements. Crippling the block size can only cripple the market which will makes speculators fleeing away.

adopters that will buy and hold, do so in the hopes one day everyone is doing "bitcafe transaction"

so maybe you should care?

I guess this is good for adoption right? 

Actually this noob you are talking to is likely not to learn anything.

Until then it seems your head is too far up into your ass to make any kind of valid judgement.

Wait for all the noobs coming here in panic because their transactions don't make it through. That test is far from being over.

In 12 months, average blocksize will be about 1mb on the current trajectory,
never mind spikes, unforseen circumstances, and the many months time
needed for consensus and rollout.

How long do you think we should wait?

Core should clearly revise their priorities then. Their prioritizations are an obvious failure. No one could argue with that.

Ask Coinwallet.

Ok so where is the deadline then for those solutions then? Because it all come to this.

There is no bingo. What got us here is Core failing to deliver a solution in a timely manner.

Core is the problem, nothing else. Accusing the market that might be ready to make a move and that is sending clear signals is just immature.

You were sold the lie that it was a pressing matter and that we should address it with urgency. What do you know anyway about their actions?


These guys have been busy fixing bottlenecks that necessarily meant your 8MB blocks would've been useless. They are the scalability champions of Bitcoin so far in its life and you impressionable noob would rather we side with two irresponsible defectors who themselves stifled technical discussion and consequently derailed the incentive to continue productive work toward resolution of the issue by wasting time doing damage control because of the XT fiasco.

Mike & Gavin's actions are the epitome of dishonesty and incompetence. I am absolutely joyous that they have shown their true face and their exile from the community will be a blessing.

Again it's not dishonest.  Their inactions are speaking louder than their actions. If they would have been really honest in solving the block size issue in a timely matter they would have communicated a clear path for doing so. Which they didn't.

THAT is either dishonest or incompetent. 

Much work has already been done in this area, from substantial improvements in CPU bottlenecks, memory usage, network efficiency, and initial block download times, to algorithmic scaling in general.