Just the socioeconomic majority at work right?

Fakhoury has doubts guise... 



Notice the names there, their percentages... Antpool, BW, BTCC... Methinks they're not pleased about being steamrolled by their side chain competition... offered complex rewrites of the network (leaving a possible majority of nodes in a SPV+ mode) with softforks giving them 0.6MB equiv gain, vs a simple two line upgrade of what we already know works.

If Bitcoin does hardfork away from Blockstream Core, you'll have plenty of warning and time before you need to upgrade your software.

If it really makes you fume with rage seeing Bitcoin grow to support 5.2tps vs 2.7... I'm sure someone will release a client with a reduced difficulty and maybe another proof of work, but don't be butthurt if the "alt-bitcoin" slur is turned back on you, friend.

The day Mircea executes his "attack" of dumping all his Bitcoin for Cripplecoins may be the buying op of a lifetime.
popcorn.gif

Whoa, no wonder Pravda bitcoin.org slammed the lever into reverse today. 

Wheels are turning... I just had a slight tingle of bullishness crawl up my spine.

 

So... you think price may raise to $500 tonight? or tomorrow than?

Monerobadger don' care.



inb4 50 cents=50 cents

Of course it could be done, it's been that way all along. Chief Scientist Viacoin just made it a little easier. Before he makes it really easy.

For larger amounts Coinbase waits for 3 confirmations. It's just like a restaurant, the majority of honest customers will pick up the slack on the dine'n'dashers. If the burden of fraud is too great, they'll eliminate the option.

Peter and you thinking this is a surprise is the "whoulda thunk it" part.

Thanks Joffrey, but you may find that it's not only Stannis that challenges your rule.

Central Bank buyer on YoBit.net, can confirm.

Ah, the cockar0ach thread.

Spreading all this doom and gloom the last few days and you were leveraged long?!?

They better publish a proof of solvency after this.

You never thought someone would order a plate of onion rings, eat them, and walk out the door? Think again...

When the time comes that a block >1MB is mined, and built upon... it's a safe bet that you've had plenty of warning.

Possible that he harbors a slight bit of resentment over what theymos did to the thread we used to enjoy/lurk?

In any event, good riddance to them, amirite?

Jackboot licking piqued my interest, sorry.

The network effect only has value when the utility of Bitcoin is better than the alternative. Artificially making Bitcoin less useful (high fees), makes alternatives more useful. It may take years to fully sacrifice the utility of the FMA, but if you do, don't be surprised if your first mover advantage turns out to be just as beneficial as it was to myspace, ashes between your fingers.

Of course there are limits, limits to be decided by miners that expend energy to create blocks. Creating megablocks that choke the network (and make your block stale in the process) is not the greatest concern here. Satoshi understood free market incentives, he designed the system around them, it's a shame to see an arbitrary malicious miner protection measure corrupt them in such a brutal fashion.

I refuse to take fear mongering in the form of government intervention seriously while a few phone calls and door knocks from the PRC would be nearly lights out. WRT major govts, we had/have two options... security through obscurity, or security through ubiquity.

Pepper for liftoff gentlemen.

I'll preface by saying that the Blockstream guys are highly competent coders and cryptographers, they were before they formed Blockstream, and they are today. Your placement of trust in them thus far is not alien to me. However, a conflict of interest is an insidious thing, it may start out benign, but under the pressure of investors, deadlines, and runway... may begin to allow a form of self delusion... a self reinforcing mentality that what is best for the company is best for the protocol.

The investors that deposited $21 mil didn't do so out of charity, they were sold an eventual ROI. I'm not satisfied with the thesis that it was "we're going to altruistically contribute open source code to better Bitcoin, which will probably make us massive amounts of money somehow, and we'll dissolve the company while stiffing the investors if we have second thoughts about it." I want to know how they plan to make money, and if artificially crippling the main chain could incubate that plan.

It seems that more distribution of available software is the only way to allow miners, who issue the votes that count, to fully exercise their built in right of voting with hashes. If the miners continue to choose core's direction, so be it, I'll convert my node to a segwit node so it actually continues to fully verify. I got interested in Bitcoin because it felt like there wasn't a central point of control, that it natively resisted control by centralized influence. I have confidence that the market will settle the blocksize just as efficiently as it sets the price and the difficulty, a market with production quotas is not a market. Mining valid blocks is not a trivial thing, and those doing it have an interest in seeing the system they manage be as successful as possible.

We're not in violent disagreement here. Although, I don't think miners moving to software with a 2-4MB max makes this inevitable or even likely. My greater concern is that a company, with the involvement of none other than Eric Schmidt, is steering and molding our current (potentially former) first mover advantage to their own ends. I think a diversified array of software choices hardens Bitcoin even further from outside control. Hiring a majority of the devs of the inertia driven "reference" client has proven much cheaper than a 51% attack, highlighting a fragile facet of our antifragile currency.