This must be one of the lamest and most stupid FUD there is...It is pure lie and misinformation

Core wins!

To "Bip or not to Bip" that is the question 

I have been reading so many pros and cons..... last look, XT is slowly gaining nodes.

Listening to these fools, arguing that bitcoin doesn't need to scale because we can use trusted third parties to work around the transaction limit.  In short it can scale as long as we don't scale it. 

People with conflicts of interest complaining that their opponents have conflicts of interest. 

so anyway. I bought a $50 gamestop gift card at purse .io for $41 worth of bitcoin, went to Gamestop and used the credit to buy a shell gift card, went to shell and bought gas and a pack of cigarettes and still have $41 dollars left on the card, so I effectively got my purchase for free!

Purse.io rocks. Bullish? _{not a paid endorsement}

It's not stupidity. It's just that most people in the ecosystem are formulating an opinion based on a fraction of the data and possible implications.


I'm saying leave the experts of the core team to do their work. They know what to do and they're doing it well.


Well, if avg block size is currently at 0.4mb (and even that is full of dust / spam txs which will be wiped out once fee competition starts for 1mb inclusion) and he says we "urgently" need 8mb and that's a very serious reason to fork it while in the process creating a rift among the devs and risking market uncertainty, well... you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that something very fishy is going on.

I don't believe he doesn't know what he is doing. He probably knows full well. It's the whole false rationale, motives and modus operandi that I'm having issues with.

Some good news in mainstream press. Finally!

"Federal Reserve deeply split. Renegade group of board members to create separate American dollar"

Poster earlier said "we need faster btc, not 10 minutes BTC".

Andersen and Hearn said "we need bigger btc, not 1mb BTC"

Next thing you know, a guy who doesn't follow protocol, just like Andersen and Hearn did, forks it in favor of 2x - 5x faster transactions and claims all the other guys are cripple coiners for insisting on a time limit that is slow and that can't rival visa. He proclaims that speed is a necessary element for getting wide adoption and that otherwise we'll be favoring payment processors that can take 0-conf transactions - so we really NEED these lower conf. times.

See how good it sounds? But these populist appeals to bigger-better-faster are bullshit.

If you ask anyone whether they want a bitcoin that can transact faster or be able to cope with more transactions, they will all say yes. Why wouldn't they? But there are very good technical reasons why we don't currently have 10mb blocks, or a high block frequency, or zero fees, or or or.

For most people these technical reasons are elusive, and that means that their decision in favor of a "better" bitcoin can be heavily influenced due to all those factors that they ignore.

So let's just leave the actual devs that know how BTC works, and that perform very thorough analyses on how it'll work out if they change key parameters, to decide the next development steps of BTC.

cry me a river.

stfu. told you this is not the place. no need to spill your ignorance everywhere, thinking your opinion matter in the first place.

wall obs thread. lets keep it that way. go altcoin section.

There is no straw man here. It's attacking the fundamental rationale behind what is happening.

2 devs saw that BTC should go another way regarding one of its parameters and they forked it. If they can do that, why not do the same for some other parameter, as they see fit?

you dont know what you are talking about. pls stop. not here anyway.

And the solution is to change bitcoin's parameter with a TV-ads approach of "bigger is better" and "faster is better" pseudo-campaign?

So next thing we know, people will be forking bitcoin because

- it has small blocks that "don't scale" (fork already provided in the form of XT- check)

- it has 10 minute blocks ("should be 5minutes or 2 minutes, so we'll fork it for the lolz, because, yeah, people can't wait 10minutes or 60 minutes if a block is late... that can't rival visa that way"

- (once the price goes over 5-10.000$ and transactions are done in 0.00x - 0.000x btc) "it has too many decimals, most people don't like them, let's fork it with proper integer units to adequately reflect value!".

- it is very centralized due to asic manufacturers etc... "we need to shift from sha256 to an asic-resistant algorithm... we'll fork it right away".

- (after the block size increase doesn't provide adequate fee compensation for the miners): "We need to increase inflation to keep our network secure, so the 21m coin cap will be no more. The alternative of non-scaling can't be sacrificed, so we'll sacrifice the fixed cap. Fork it..."


No thanks. I prefer intelligent dialogue between the core team until they have consensus. This is a multi-billion project, you can't go like a raging bull around the place.

unproductive comments such as your's Mr. Lama are the ones which should get lost.

Cant think of a better way to represent bitcoin, a weeping angel. The Doctor Who fans in this thread know exactly what happens when you blink and a weeping angel is out to get you. You simply cannot declare bitcoin dead, you cannot take your eyes away from it, you cant blink.

Bitcoin has the phone box. It's a creature from another world. It's static only when you see it... the lonely assassin, they used to call it...
Dont turn around, dont look away and dont blink.

I already addressed the difference. It's not my fault if you jump in the middle and think you've made some profound point.

Again, that's exactly what I'm asking. In the free market, every trade is win-win or no deal. No victims. One party may benefit more than the other but they both benefit or the trade doesn't happen. There is no "victim" in backmail. Actions have consequences and offering someone a choice as to which consequences they face is a simple business proposal. I'm guessing Bill Clinton would have preferred Linda Tripp make such a proposal.