Is this real? Sounds awful. If she did not know about it or maybe he doesn't even care about here. Whose wife was it? Is JM the shortcut for the scammer or the wife?

I did not think that it went this far already with the bitcoin community. I would like to think the persons that did that to the woman are not real bitcoiners but when i read all the threats and more on the forum i think i can't say that for sure.

I know, new buyers would have a problem. Though for the spenders it would be good. They would not need to care about newbie buyers. Though they might lose some buyer who would buy their wishlist for a higher discount that way. It would be up to them to chose what they prefer.

At the end, i think, there still would be enough users that would allow newbies as buyers. Especially if it is the default setting.

You probably use firefox then since chrome does not delete the formular contents.

If this happens again then go back and if the form is empty go forward one page in history. Firefox will then ask you to resend the content. If you do then you might get your post sent.

Another tip is that you should install the firefox extension lazarus. It is an extremely valuable extension which saved me a lot of data already, not only on this forum.

That is correct. Purse.io really should allow spenders to chose some minimum settings for buyers. Only those meeting those criterias can buy for you. For example i would set that i only chose buyers who had at least 3 successful trades 1 month ago. That will make it nearly impossible that he used carded funds.

But then... it could be still gamed. For example buying correctly at the start, with some anonymous prepaid virtual credit card. But it would lower the risk a lot i think.

This is a great argument which clearly shows that some people don't care about bitcoin but instead about some altcoin that they claim is better suited. What does this have to do with bitcoin? Nothing anymore.

We need to make bitcoin better. And that only can be reached with making bitcoin fit for the future.

Nobody awaits bitcoin having as many transactions as visa suddenly. But we know that the bitcoin usage is slowly rising and me need to be prepared for that.

All this fear spread... it would be funny when it wouldn't be sad.

Then why do you fear that ominous spam coming when turtle claimed we are not even half full with our block? Shouldn't we have full blocks already when your spam fear would be true?

The blocks are not full with spam because it is costly. And it will be even more costly filling 8 MB blocks. No one would pay that because there would be no reason to do so.

I always wonder where suddenly all the spam should come from that does not even now happen. And the spam attacks that happen now only make sense because there is so few space in the block anymore. Otherwise the cost for spamming would be way way higher. And no one would pay for it.

No one wants Hearns crazy ideas. Not even the one that chose xt temporarely.

And why the fear of miners working for free? You realize that mining is so rewarding nowadays that we have 100 times more hashrate than needed to make the whole bitcoin network secure? Bitcoin mining is way too rewarding at the moment. You really should not fear that miners drop their work. Miners NEED to drop their work. It does not make sense that it costs 1.75 average us households daily power usage for one single bitcoin transaction.

Yeah... it somehow reminds of him wanting that someone decides what transactions are valid and which not. Illegitime transactions, dust and so on are unworthy to be part of bitcoin. They should be done "off chain". Well, that is the very definition of centralization, insecurity and totally not what bitcoin was created for.

You realize that you will destroy bitcoin when you try to make up block halving losses with higher fees? I wonder how you guys think that could somehow work.

Besides that... you know that we have way way too many miners? Mining is way too rewarding at the moment, the profits are way too high. We need less miners, not higher fees.

At the moment we have a so high hashrate that we could handle 100 times more transactions and the network would still be safe. So we have 100 times more hashrate then we need.

And after this relatively new study, each bitcoin transaction is using the electricy that 1.75 average us households use in one day. For ONE single bitcoin transaction.

No, really, we don't need higher fees.


Though still we will hit it. And the plans for 8MB are longterm. It will happen in months.

By the way... with 1 MB we have no space for a sudden bitcoin adoption rise. If big players accept bitcoins and the transactions rise up then bitcoin would brutally fail. And it would get a hit that would be really hefty. Very bad user experience. Deadly.


Only because you live in a rich country doesn't mean that people with less money than you do "junk" transactions.

And when you take this important feature of bitcoin, what will you have then? Another paypal? Great. Why should someone switch to use bitcoin again then?


See again my answer to point 1. There is simply no need for rising fees now. And "simply rising" fees are a problem. Might be it is unimportant for you but free and cheap transactions are a key plus feature of bitcoin.


Then why again do we need 100 times more mining power and so costly transactions, power wise, that we look like a danger to ecology?


Yes, the confusion is there. FUD spread from all sides, way too emotional. Though that is something that happens on both sides.

I wonder if there will be a problem. I think the fear of the fork is already the worst thing. The actual thing will go through without problems i think.


I felt free too add.

It makes no sense anyway since a double spend will not happen for a coffee or so. Even for huge buys it would make no sense on many levels.

The only thing i can imagine, being risky, might be a fork the merchant and buyer are on. So that no real bitcoins moved.

Though the result of an artificial block size limit would nothing less than raising fees when the blocks are full most of the time. So microtransactions won't work anymore the way they were. So it doesn't really matter if the spam attacks artifically raised fees. With 1MB blocks blocks will be full all the time and one point. And that inevitably means rising fees.

As if the bitcoin network needs rising fees. Mining is so rewarding at the moment that we have 100 times more hashingpower than needed to secure the network. 100 times. Which translates to 1 transaction costing so much power like 1.75 average us households use in one whole day.

Sure, i can see why miners want to earn more or want their old miners still earn. But it is completely impossible to fight the blockhalving with rising fees too.

No worries. The remaining core developers say that bitcoiners that think that bitcoin fees became way to costly, transctions going through are uncertain and so on can use the great new altcoin sidechain lightning network and leave bitcoin.



Oh the irony.

How i hate how the bitcoin development has become a pool of politics that don't work on the main thing anymore but on their own little side project that they work for in reality. Corruption i would name that in the real world.

It's a pity.

Sure, because there is no way to specify the mining client to be prioritized. I mean bitcoin must be so low tech that every porn streamer can mine and stream at the same time.

That is so very much arbitrarely, it's funny somehow. I mean why not lets say that we can't take out the commodore 64 users? Let's downgrade bitcoin because we don't want anyone being discriminated. It's not the fault of the person who does hinder bitcoin on it's work, right?

I await the very few remaining home miners are a lot smarter than that.

Again... problems come up that are no problems.

You think we have decentralized mining now? Where did you life the last year? Oo

And you fear 2-6 seconds download time? What is so much better in needing 0.25 to 0.75 seconds? What will it safe for you?

And it will take a long time with the normal adoption rate of bitcoin to reach 8MB constantly.

What exactly is your problem with that? It's not like there will something negative happen when you don't get a randomly spread block in around 10 minutes in under 1 second.

That's again an assumption that was proven wrong long ago by reality. As long as the 1 MB blocks were not full the fees did not vanish like you make the story go. The bitcoiners still pay their fee. Might be because of the wrong assumption that it will go much faster or is needed. In fact it is a little bit faster and the feest are very small anyway. So no one cares really paying them.

Your assumption is already proven incorrect. There is no reason to assume that will change only because we have 50% free space in a 8 MB block instead in a 1MB block.


Yes, we doubled the amount of possible transactions. And that's something crucially needed. Imagine paypal having a max global allowed transaction amount per hour? That would be plain stupid and everyone would go away.

If suddenly a big company like ebay would start accepting bitcoin then bitcoin would show it is useless. No one would use it after having seen how limited it is. Artificially limited.

It's good that you want to keep bitcoins unique characteristics but surely higher fees are not the way. On top it would mean unreliablity since when you somehow end with a fee too low, you will not get it send. That is deadly for a payment system.

So sorry, your way will surely kill bitcoin in the long run.

What do you write here? You assume they will be filled because you assume it will be so? You know, i know that the past has shown that you are not correct. So i'm fine with me being not convinced by your assumption.

The bottlenecks you describe are nonsense too. The bitcoin network can't remain so lowtech that each and every modem user can use it. It only must be useable with the hardwar that is widely used. And that includes relatively old hardware too. But when someone uses tech from 10 years ago then he can't await that he can use every software running nowadays. I mean you set higher rules then they are usual in ever other area. And that makes no sense.

*lol* You argument with 35 MB backlog? And? Then will be four 8 MB blocks filled. Then the spook is over.

And again... do you want to spam a network with 8 MB blocks? For what reason?

*lol* Again an argument that you use that will be solved with 8 MB blocks. You say if the blocks are nearly full attacks will cost more and that we should not upgrade to 8 MB because they eventually will be full too at some point. So let's keep 1MB? Surely that makes sense.

If we fight the spam with fees then bitcoin will lose one of it's rare advantages. But i guess you would be ok for that? Altcoin involved or so?

But maybe you don't want the blocksize rise because it is only a temporary fix. Then yes, i would prefer no limit at all. Past has shown that it was no problem to have enough free space in the blocks. They did not fill up because some ominous spammers with deep pockets filled them up.

No? Why do you think so? Why should there somehow suddenly full 8 Megabyte blocks happen. Where should all these transactions come from? The 8MB are the maximum only. And it will take a lot of time until we naturally reach that limit. And you know harddrive space is growing constantly each year.

There simply will be no problem.

Why do you think we need to raise the fee to keep the miner payment high? Will you raise the fee in order to compensate the block halving too? That would be instant dead to bitcoin.

It simply can't be done.

And do you realize that the bitcoin network has way too much hashpower? That shows that the rewards are very high. In fact a study showed that only one bitcoin transaction nowadays eats as much electricity as one average US-Household uses a whole day. We have so much hashpower that we could handle hundred times more transactions and the bitcon network would still be safe.

We don't need to raise the fees! Miners had to switch off hardware all the time. Otherwise they would still mine with CPU and GPU. When the rewards get lower then this would be actually better for bitcoin.

Unfortunately the one that decide everything are the miners. I wonder if they decide to their own good in the short term or in the long term.

But that is even possible with fiat. I mean if you have money whose serial number is known coming from a bank robbery then your money is taken without a refund.

And bitcoins can be followed the same way up to the single satoshi.

Ah, so you simply are a fan of putin. Fine for me. Though you need to know that not everyone wants to live in a country whose legal system is following the words of the kreml. Where practically one person rules like a czar. It might be fine for others but i would not want it.

In my opinion, when someone saves you from bad persons, then you are not obliged to see that saviour as a saint. He most probably has his failures too. And surely putin has his.

And what do you say about slander? My girlfriend is a native russian and she is the best that happened to me in my life. I didn't know a girl can be that great. So don't tell me i slander russian citizens. If you don't see failures in russia then fine. But don't await that from others.