'Decentralization' without fully-validating nodes is not really decentralization. Each node in a decentralized network must be able to verify all transactions for itself.

Accordingly, the only nodes that count for decentralization are those that maintain not only the transaction forkbranch of the data, but also the witness forkbranch of the data.

The sum of the transaction forkbranch of the data, plus the witness forkbranch of the data, is somewhat larger than it would be if the witness data stayed in the same block. There is additional data needed to correlate the correct block of transaction data with the correct block of witness data.

For a fully validating node, the resource demands are accordingly higher for The SegWit Omnibus Changeset than a simple bump of maxblocksize.

That is only the first layer of how The SegWit omnibus Changeset is bloating bitcoin.

It is smaller than franky1's scenario, but it does not require his/her (fully rational, BTW) interpretation of Core and Blockstream statements of what they might want to do in the future.

edit: overloaded use of fork replaced with branch

The only reason you could possibly think that is that your picture of us bigblockers is formed by mischaracterization of what we actually want. Instead of getting your picture of bigblockers' motivations and desires from your fellow smallblockers, you might want to read what we bigblockers are actually saying.


The most secure blockchain, the most ecosystem, and the most user base -- at least for the moment. My fear is that by driving transactions off the main chain, these advantages will be ceded to another crypto.


"There you go again" - RR

I'm not "running on words". I'm running BU.


Long as it takes, my friend.

Yep, and the first time that a block greater than 1MB gets built upon, and another atop that, and another, and ..., I will continue securing the integrity of the chain. You?

While I am running BU, not XT nor Classic, I would like to point out that it is you who appears desperate, JJG. We are not desperate. For as long as Classic holds the market share that it does, Core cannot amass the 95% required for activation.

Can you imagine the crow eating required to reduce the activation threshold?

I mean, not like it can't be done. But such shame... such shame...

No, we're not desperate. We're quietly working toward the goal of large block adoption. Until the reality is in the past, it is merely an open question.

Cheers!

No, the only time I have seen that stated is when the least honest of the smallblockers have been building a straw man to engulf in flames.

The only internal inconsistency was yours, in claiming that a certain item which is perfectly inelastic was actually elastic.

Well, no. But thanks for playing.

"There you go again" - Ronald Reagan

Lying to try to make a point, that is. Show me more than one quote which supports your claim that bigblockers assert we need to scale to visa levels today.

I'm assuming the $2.3T outlier claim was/will be rejected.

"The total amount claimed to date stands at 263,519,268,303,371 JPY, approximately $2,411,412,137,427 USD. The total amount of bitcoin held by the MtGox estate is approximately 202, 185 XBT, or approximately $91.2 million, which bitcoin exchange Kraken will help distribute among the claimants."

Wonder how much of the $91 M$ will be left after the lawyers get their cut?

You already have by arguing that a fixed cap on block size is anything other than identical to a resource with an inelastic supply.

...by some unquantifiable subset of actual stakeholders...


...by some similarly unquantifiable -- though mostly complementary -- subset of actual stakeholders.


Obviously because they are not 'pretty much already settled'.


Hmmm. Neither has any implementation of The SegWit Omnibus Proposal as of yet. Funny, that.


I'm still pushing for BU. So sue me.


Well, no. Don't lie to try to make a point. Both XT and Classic were proposed solutions to what their proposers saw as an actual emergency. I still agree with their viewpoint.


Obviously an improper use of English. What is your definition of 'fake proposal'?

Anyone have a handy Venn diagram of features for Etherium, Rootstock, Counterparty, and any other smart contracts contender?

The obvious game-theoretically consistent solution to this is for some miners to stop trying to validate aberrant blocks, and get back to the business of hashing. For such would be a market advantage. Assuming such aberrant blocks are ever created in any volume.


I wasn't aware Classic was beholden to Core's cadence. 'Twould kind of defeat the purpose, no? For that matter, where is Core's Xthin implementation? Where is Core's per-node variable limits? Where's Core's big block support?

Right - they're not seen as desirable by Core. Well, there's your answer.

But it seems you'd rather attack a straw horse than discuss a real issue.

Thwart theft by stealing? Yeah, that makes sense. Not.

Again, the only moral position is that personal property is sacrosanct. The community has no rightful claim upon those coins.

1) Price gonna up
2) Price gonna down
3) Price gonna sideways









(?)

Perhaps you missed the 'with today's technology...'. Are you proposing that it would be valid to do so today? For that is the analogy.

But regardless, the answer is _no_. The prerogative -- and the responsibility -- belongs solely to the owner.

Thank you for your reconsideration.

For the record, the charge of im-/a-morality was meant more to shock people into reexamination of the issue. In general, I tend to accord people as intending to behave in a moral manner unless there is concrete evidence to the contrary.

But to seal the deal for others on the sidelines:

With today's technology, it is trivial for a thief to crack a door key and ignition key on many cars. Given enough immoral actors, and enough time, every such vulnerable car is a candidate for theft. We do not preemptively steal all such cars "for the common good". Because such is theft would be evil. Even if we were to subsequently crush any such vehicles that were "fixed" in this manner, it is still evil. And the fact that if we did not do so, leaving the theft to another who might subsequently sell the vehicle, would marginally reduce the value of all our other vehicles on the used market does not change the fact that preemptive confiscation is inherently evil.

That does not justify you stealing them before the other party can steal them.


Up until the very instant they are stolen, the owner has potential value. The exact instant some other actor might steal them is literally un-knowable. Ergo, at the instant you (either a single Bitcoin Overlord or the collective) steal them, it was at a point in time that the coins had potential value to the rightful owner.


I'm with with you so far....


...nope. Lost me. Wait - not 'lost me' - you are wrong. There is no dilution - those coins already existed. Their potential value may at any time up until the theft may be converted to actual value by the rightful owner.


The loss of confidence due to the ability to crack an obsolete format key pales in significance to the loss of confidence in bitcoin due to the manifest will for the collective to change the rules to invalidate keys.


Bullshit. It is never moral to steal, even though the objective be to prevent some other from stealing.


The law abiding suffer no loss. That other thief may gain, sure. But what of the rightful owner? Again, you have no means of determining exactly when that other thief will act. The management of the risk of such theft is solely the prerogative of the rightful coin owner.


Necessary yet insufficient.