It is interesting to watch the poll results, until yesterday people were ready to go all in if the CIA took charge of bitcoin. Today , i see a drastic movement from the other side. Even though the number of votes are extremely low and may not reflect the opinion of the masses, i feel the masses would vote to go all in if the CIA took charge of Bitcoin. The only issue really, is that this was not the principle of Bitcoin when it was launched, it was supposed to be free of any government control or in fact any central authority. The fact that people are ready to go all in if the CIA takes over is interesting, because people feel that essentially it is a government nod for the use of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to be the currency of the free though, so its quite interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. If you put up this poll at the start of the Bitcoin lifecycle, i am sure 95% would have said "GTFO".

A not-so-sophisticated attacker could spam the hell out of the blockchain, while also ensuring that his bloat doesn't have the potential for much pruning.

so which is it, the increase is too big and too small at the same time?  We don't need to go head to head with VISA right now. We need grown up core devs who don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 

I really dont think that there is an excuse not to scale up. Hell, it should be an automated process by now. The community will grow and we're going to need the larger blocks. I dont see how making the block, say... 8MB would cause any trouble. At all. Personally, I dont think this most recent crash back to $220s is merely because of the blocksize debate, but it's not helping. Bitcoins are good for me at $1000 or $100, it's just too useful to not use. Much more useful than some other methods of transferring money. If we let Bitcoin stall behind, we have hundreds of other cryptocurrencies lining up to be the face of cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin will live on, ether in scaled-up core or XT. Meanwhile, there will be more "bitcoin is dead" headlines to add to that one webpage.

Using censorship to silence any individual or groups of individuals is fundamentally one of the most horrible things that can be done to a human being.

You know that claim is nonsense, but join in the attack to silence others.

You are simply a horrible person, you think you are funny but you are not. Welcome to my permanent ignore list.

That young ass never heard that anyone has the authority to code a client in an open source environment.

and this threads #gold posts = 0

Cypherdoc's stalkers are still 'alive' ...
While nobody is upgrading to core 0.11.0

thanks for posting that.

the fact that your supposed great Szabo would retweet a stupid tweet like that by btcdrak says alot.

880!

Bro, your fork, it's broken: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.0

I'm saving all the code here just in case they decide to hide it. We need a skilled programmer to go through this and see just how bad it is, there's so much code itd be easy to hide some malicious stuff in here.

Keep in mind this code is all for the IP logger and blacklist, they worked hard on this! I would just post it here but it is an absolutely immense amount of code.

There's both a whitelist and a blacklist, like Coinbase. From what I can tell it is NOT all objective, they can subjectively put people on the lists. This would give them complete control of anyone who uses Bitcoin.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByLnBVYGlyDsT25MNExSUDB2NTA/view?usp=sharing

Those are relay nodes, not miners.  They have no direct say on the bock size increase; but by showing support they may convince miners to switch. 


They were OK with 8 MB but did not want to switch to XT; they wanted all the devs to get together.  But that was weeks ago, and it is clear that Core will never agree to any increase.  Who knows what they are thinking now.

I'm saving all the code here just in case they decide to hide it. We need a skilled programmer to go through this and see just how bad it is, there's so much code itd be easy to hide some malicious stuff in here.

Keep in mind this code is all for the IP logger and blacklist, they worked hard on this! I would just post it here but it is an absolutely immense amount of code.

There's both a whitelist and a blacklist, like Coinbase. From what I can tell it is NOT all objective, they can subjectively put people on the lists. This would give them complete control of anyone who uses Bitcoin.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByLnBVYGlyDsT25MNExSUDB2NTA/view?usp=sharing

Notice how your thread is totally devoid of any intellectual content or insight. That's because you're the OP. it will never amount to anything because you have nothing of intellectual value to offer . Just thuggery. That list of guys you put yourself in can and will  enjoy each other's circle jerk.

You don't know how businesses work obviously. Most businesses build in secret to not get their idea stolen. There as been more than a bilion in investment in bitcoin businesses up to date. They are out there waiting the right timing in silence. You can be sure. And scaling is part of that timing.

Of course that stress test was to push forward the scaling. What you need to understand is that there is a shit load of businesses out there that are waiting for bitcoin to scale to start their operations.

If bitcoin gets backed by the NSA is this bullish?

demand can come at any time, its not rushing anything to implement a temporary measure to allow bigger blocks that executes next year.
non the less, it seems the science and the maths behind the incentives implies that the miners will limit them selves and its just the ignorant that think they need the laws of me to govern the block size.

Another important principle of Bitcoin is that stakeholders know the protocol can't change unless a vast, nearly-unanimous consensus agrees to those changes. We have never instituted a protocol change without this threshold of acceptance. It is important to achieve overwhelming consensus on changes to Bitcoin, because that stability underlies confidence in Bitcoin itself. It is disappointing to see so much support for a 75% threshold, which is unprecedented, and with the current network security (SPV mining, etc.) an even lower threshold of support is necessary for this fork to win.

Aside from mere miner consensus, it is a fact that nearly all of the technical expertise in our community outside of Gavin and Mike, including experts from within and outside of the core dev team, do not agree with this fork. It is not a rejection of increasing the block size limit, but a desire to be conservative, spend a little more time fleshing out ideas, and come up with a solution that does not harm decentralization. The block size limit is not just a number, it has huge implications for the scalability, decentralization and security of the entire network. All of the most reputable engineers and cryptocurrency experts in this community are urging caution.

There are workshops on scalability in the following months. There is an active discussion about scalability and the block size limit among the core developers. There is code being developed, and research being done on alternative designs and approaches to our scalability problems.
I would hope that the community could see through this, and understand that hastily forcing a technical decision on the network through politics is a bad idea. If you bypass a process (achieving consensus among experts on well motivated protocol changes) that is designed to be conservative and forge the right path on difficult issues, you risk upending all of the work the developers have done to make Bitcoin a useful monetary system. You not only upend the decision-making process and alienate the people best equipped to improve Bitcoin, but you set a terrible precedent for future disputes on technical matters. It sets a very bad standard for Bitcoin's approach to development.

if that's true it's the cripple coiners to blame, they are holding the network hostage with limited transactions calling the only option to allow bigger block next year a unnecessary rush. Gavin has found a willing option to increase the block size in XT.