Well, I would assume "mooooooooooo-splat!" when it hits the wall...

Then put your voice behind BIP100:

http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

This extends the block size in core, making it a dynamic variable that can be voted on by the miners and pools to adjust up and down as market pressures dictate.  It's the most solid proposal I've seen to date, and it addresses the core issue at hand, without all the other extra stuff within BIP101/XT that is making it distasteful.

Neither.  Go read Jeffs BIP100 white paper.  I did earlier tonight and I'm glad I did.  I can fully support a proposal such as that - it's reasonable, and I think a very good solution to the block size issue, especially from the miners' perspective in being able to majority control the block size in a dynamic fashion.

This gets us to where we need to be, with Core, and without all the crap baggage that comes along with XT.  And, it doesn't go anywhere near the outrageous 8gb potential block size which will certainly aid centralization. 

Just look at his responses.  He's trolling and apparently doesnt even have the cranial capacity to come back with anything beyond schoolyard insults.  I left those behind in third grade and learned to walk properly upright with not dragging my knuckles on the ground, unlike this wonderful specimen.  Another one to the ignore list. 

Any change if this magnitude requires a fork.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0

As stated by Satoshi himself in the above thread, any change to the block size will render the client incompatible with the others.  That will require a fork of the code to a new version with the changes, triggered to "on" by a specific set of criteria.  

Although Im not on board with XT's proposed changes, they are correct in the way they need to roll it out, it needs to be forked. If Core comes to a consensus about the block size increase, whenever it happens it will be the same thing.

EDIT:  Also on the "informed" mantra - I also suggest anyone who doesn't think a block size increase is needed, go read the thread I posted above, and others related.  If the original original core group saw that this would be needed way back in 2010, there should be little argument against it now.   One of the core visions was to someday be able to replace a processor like Visa.  There's many threads out there with the actual math behind the number of Tps it would take to do so, and 1MB is simply not enough to handle that.  It was a temporary measure to stop spam.  Guess what?  Those spam attacks we've had (and supposedly will have again soon) are exactly what's capable of hurting us now.

There's also plenty of reading to do on Satoshi's original visions which address his ideas of centralization as Bitcoin grows.  Staying true to the original vision actually supports the idea of consolidation of nodes as Bitcoin grows, along with introduction of what we now have as SPV wallets for those that can't run it. 

NastyPoP is a ckpool front end running on top of the core P2Pool.  It proxies all PoP miners as one address to P2Pool, and then it keeps track of shares and pays out weekly.   It aims to be a more even distribution method to smooth out the variance spikes as well as make sure smaller miners receive proper payouts when they may otherwise not land a share in the current block payout. 

Over a long term the numbers should converge and in reality the expectation is that PoP should come out ahead in the long run.

When the normal P2Pool has a good week it ends up higher, when its luck is down PoP ends up higher.  The long term numbers from Johnny however, I don't know why it's still a little off.

You can't unless you were there to witness the destruction of all the keys and any media they were stored on.  This is where trustworthiness comes into play, and you have to believe and trust in those who made the coins that they did what they say they did.

Well now, that's extremely ignorant and a "first world" way of thinking.  For many people in other countries of the world, especially where Bitcoin has gained a respectable foothold, $0.50 USD represents quite a significant amount of money, possibly even a full day's pay.  There's no possible way you can expect someone to pay that much just to get a transaction to be accepted in the queue.

In order to gain adoption and grow to where most people think Bitcoin should be, it needs to adapt to be able to provide reasonable transaction times for the majority of transactions, for a reasonable fee.  That reasonable fee is not $0.50 for the majority of people, and thus won't work too well.  You are effectively telling all those folks that you don't give a shit about them, and you're pretty much advocating the same type of situation you're railing against with your arguments against XT.  Just because you think it's a trivial matter and can afford it, everyone else should just "suck it up" because that's the best way to do it.

BTW - in all your supposed "research", did you happen to come across the fact that the original blocksize limit was supposed to be 33MB?  Satoshi himself realized that 1MB was not sustainable for long term growth.

I started a thread with a poll over in the Meta sub forum for that.  Can't find it at the moment where I am but if you go look there please feel free to bump it up and add to the discussion.  Maybe someday someone with mod power will take notice and create it for us. 

If it achieves its 75%, then that switches to the new core, and the coins are worth nothing less than they are today.  XT is a set of enhancements to core just like QT was/is. The blockchain continues, your coins stay the same, and life goes on. 

Now let's not derail this into a discussion about XT.  There's enough of that over in the "Discussion" sub forum.

DNS issues with the domain provider took the nodes offline.

Yeah, between him and snarlipill I think I'm now interested as well...

I have a 2013 silver tenth in MS-68 if you are interested.  Would be looking to just sell it, no trade needed. 

Howsabout a special silver or silver/gold coin as a reward/award?

Yes, I know I'm biased quite heavily in this suggestion, seeing as I gobbled up a ton of the coins just to try to get a full series.

But, that's what made it extremely FUN!  Trying to find the coins so you could get a complete set.  That's what us actual collectors want... we strive to complete a full set of "something".  Be it a numbered set of all 1's, or a full set of MS-9000 graded, or whatever.

I could give a crap about most of the alts (and yeah, WTH is Coin2???).  I wanted them primarily so I could complete something.  I'm not really knocking your idea of "hey, this is part of history", I agree.  But there's obviously a larger alterior motive as well...

I'd say make a run of the most popular coins - Bitcoin, Litecoin, Namecoin - with different true PM options.  Make some all silver, make some silver/gold gilded, make some different weights (.5oz and 1oz maybe), and have some fun with an "awards" system.  If you have only a couple 3-coin silver sets made, and you need to complete a full set of whatever in order to get one of them, it should drive interest, and trading, to get them.  Number them, make them special colors or special designs to set them apart from the normal ones.

You kinda did this with your offer of a free set of the 2nd series to the first one to complete a full gold-plated set.  Take it to the next level.

That's my idea for making it a true collectable, and to drive people to want to be able to buy them and collect them.

Hard to tell from the pics... is this the "error" one, or the normal one?

As Blazed said, your auction, your terms... Make sure you're comfortable with letting it go at the price you want... there's nothing worse than regretting it later if you think you went against your gut.

I'm sure the reserve you pick will be reasonable, so you should get some action.  How much, well, that will be interesting to see...

Yes.

Will that price include shipping?

If Bitmain is selling direct for $2750, I'd rather go there, ship direct and take my chances with customs.  Your price is too high to yet add shipping on top, if their price does end up as stated.

oooh... /me begins to load sniper rifle

 

As requested....

Left to right - Silver single, Silver/Gold single, 2x bitnickel



For the bitnickels, the 68 is spoken for, and I'm keeping the 67.