Yes, and the "Mad Max" hyperbole is nonsense, something closer to Brave New World or Terry Gilliam's Brazil IMO (Terry Gilliam's Brazil is pretty close to reality even now)

Not realistic


Deterioration or outright paradigm change of the global internet is very plausible. Get a grip










@Lauda, did you stop talking when I proved you thoroughly wrong, only to leave an opening for Mr. Walls-of-text to disrupt the thread?

You're attempting a false premise right off the bat


There is no guarantee that internet infrastructure will be sufficiently capable to deal with on-chain scaling to begin with.

Instead of designing changes around a medium or best case scenario that hasn't happened yet, we should plan for the worst case scenario instead


You're making a super huge assumption that global internet connectivity does not deteriorate over the next 5 years of your "scaling" plan


What happens if the global internet infrastructure deteriorates in bandwidth or connectivity over that timeframe?

I'd accept 4MB Segwit (which is the actual proposal), or less increase than that. And of course, the only purpose of that is in reality to enable 2nd layers, yes.


Because only 2nd layers provide any meaningful scaling paradigm

More Franky style lying by omission


You know full well that's not my position, I don't think Segwit's 4MB is sensible either. And you know that, hence you are dishonest


And now the actual ad-hom. I am saying things about you that are relevant to the issue, and which are also true


We are all selling, Lauda, every minute of every day. Only the dishonest deny it, even if they are primarily lying to themselves

You're wriggling Lauda, visibly


Saying "X MB is acceptable in Y time frame" == saying on-chain scaling works


Go on, try again. See if Franky's strategies work for you, repeat your logical fallacy again and again and again



Proving them wrong? Why yes, when they are wrong, that's what one does



My assessment proves that you have built up trust in the long term, then used up all of that trust in a couple of days to sell a contradiction.

Problem?

How there be no rule of law, in a country where the media follow the government's orders, or where the authoritarian state does whatever it wants  





Not to mention, Venezuelans are having their passports confiscated and their passport applications denied, en masse. Sounds like they have an incredibly unyielding and powerful rule of law to me.

When you say "no rule of law", I think maybe you mean "no moral code", which is most definitely not the same thing

Slippery slope

I strongly recommend sticking to people who've made technical contributions only, which is why Vitalik Buterin shouldn't be on the list

Your behaviour is being attacked, not your character (seriously, you're now reaching for the bed-wetting "ad-hom" rhetoric)


You've consistently excluded any interest in suddenly changing your mind to "on-chain scaling works", if you said it, it was 1% of your total output for several YEARS , and you've certainly never said "on-chain scaling works", even if you did express an interest in "2MB only".

Now, you're here using all the trust and confidence others might have placed in you to push for the opposite of what you used to say, and this has been 75% of your output in JUST A FEW DAYS. Are you hoping that no-one would notice the huge, gaping contradiction?  



Now, that's a sudden change in your behaviour, not your character, your character was clearly always prone to hypocrisy and conceit.

Which is not what's being proposed

You're entirely wrong


Segwit may not be perfect, but the notion that BU is an honest or valid attempt at developing Bitcoin is a great big joke.


Today's fees are supposedly unbearable, prompting big block crusaders. What happens to BU when the price increases by more than 16x? The coveted 10,000 satoshis fees will suddenly become $2 again. We'll be right back in the same exact situation, big blockers screeching "blOkS arnT biG eNufffff, raISE thE ceilIinGGGG!!!!!!1"



Which part of "big blocks are not a valid scaling paradigm" do you not understand? How fucking stupid are you?

Let's see what happens when some form of UASF gains popularity with people that don't have all day long to sit around shit talking about this



You can all fuck off with your "2MB" compromise, which has taken less than 12 pages to warp itself into 12MB 

Lauda in particular, you should know better than this by now, which makes me question your intentions towards the whole issue to begin with

I hope you all have sufficient understanding of what "fuck off" means

If that's what you're expecting, you're wrong on both counts


And you know you're wrong, don't you

why are you jackals trying to promote 2 different "Democratic" blocksize proposals at once (this and BU)


is it because user support for BU is so low, despite how many BU nodes you have spread out over so many hosting services

Is this not already (or planned ) as a part of the Compact Blocks design, or is that wrong? Sounds interesting either way

Ah, so there is at least a proposal for a spec (I seem to remember there was an old one that was withdrawn)

Last wallet question

Have you guys tested the compressed P2SH keys on testnet? Any problems? I'd quite like to begin using them, it seems incredibly anti-social to continue to use uncompressed keys if their implementation is considered safe to use now.

The closer the EU comes to disintegration, terrorist attacks will increase in frequency and severity, and the EU parliament will call a state of emergency that prevents any states from becoming independent, for "security reasons".

You could always vote harder though, lol

For me, it's equally, if not more possible that financial markets become a part of Bitcoin before Bitcoin becomes a part of the financial markets

A bit too "blue skies" maybe, but I expect people said that about electronic internet cash once, too

...the majority of which isn't code in the software, but external testing code that's not a part of Bitcoin itself


Are you suggesting that diligent testing code is somehow irresponsible? Your presentation of the facts is selective, and irresponsible

That it's not a vote, lol

When a proposal wins a vote, it becomes dominant. BUcoin won't survive the markets, the vast majority of commercial and private players actually using Bitcoin are publicly rejecting it