Then saying that we need bigger blocks is a "specious" argument when they are purposely mining empty blocks.

It is clear that the reason they are doing this is "purely political" (and do you really want to support some corrupt Chinese mining pool?).

(btw - this is the reason that the other Chinese mining pools *do not support them* as they have shown themselves to be dishonest)

I would have thought that you would not have been in support of corruption but perhaps you have been bought (along with the other bunch of shills supporting large blocks with no good reason to).

Just look above - the major pool supporting 2MB blocks is AntPool - yet they create more "empty blocks" than any other pool - do you not see the problem?

(you can't have a serious debate about increasing block size when your most serious supporter creates empty blocks)

Once again we have idiots calling upon other idiots to support larger blocks.

Your greatest fans are AntPool yet if you care to look at the 1 tx (i.e. empty) blocks over the last few days you'll see that they were all created by AntPool.

So if you think you are actually going to get *more txs* by supporting 2MB blocks then you are actually *very wrong* as the major pool supporting it creates "empty blocks" every day.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1389772.msg14127188#msg14127188

It is a pity that all intelligence has been thrown out of this debate a long time ago (maybe you should try and convince AntPool to stop mining empty blocks before demanding that everyone else should support 2MB blocks).

You don't find it at all odd that "the only major Chinese pool promoting 2MB blocks is the one that creates the most empty blocks"?

(that must be a bit embarrassing for the *we must have 2MB blocks now* supporters)

Seems you aren't up to disproving me so let me just provide a few links to recent blocks with 1 tx:

https://blockchain.info/block-height/401583
https://blockchain.info/block-height/401557
https://blockchain.info/block-height/401539
https://blockchain.info/block-height/401512

(all from AntPool who are supposedly your friends as they are the ones promoting 2MB blocks - despite the fact that they are creating more empty blocks than anyone else)

Let's just start with this: https://bitcoinchain.com/pools

(irrefutable proof that the majority of blocks are mined by Chinese pools)

So if you want to prove that the 1 tx blocks were not mined by those pools then please give us the links.

Okay - you are the guy who loves to show off your "stats".

Please give us the list of mining pools that mined the last 1K blocks and the number of 1 tx blocks within that list (and which pool mined them).

(yes - I am going to make you show everyone else my point and if you lie then I'll show the evidence of your lying)

Really - are you so childish?

Again - I never stated what you are claiming I did - so why do I need to "prove myself right" for something only you think I stated?

(why don't you try and find where I stated that - and while you're at it where are the list of 1 tx blocks for the last month?)

I never stated such a thing so saying that "I concede" this it is rather stupid of you (but to be expected as you always make stupid arguments).

You have a very bad habit of "trying to win points" when you have actually won nothing with your hollow arguments.

You have another very bad habit of trying to attack someone with multiple arguments in the one post - as you can see I don't care to address you subsequent arguments - either stick to one point per post or just see that your points will be ignored.

I was not arguing about particular statistics but merely pointed out that there are empty (i.e. 1 tx) blocks still being mined (please show me the stats of the number of 1 tx blocks mined in the last month).

(as you are so good with finding the stats then I'm sure you can find those)

You have no idea how many blocks are being SPV mined but the evidence from the last fork issue has shown that a large percentage (perhaps the majority) of Chinese mining pools are mining that way (which is not secure).

The further you increase the block size then the more SPV mining (at least in China) is going to happen (and as they control the majority of hashing power then they are what matters most). Thus the more you increase the block size the less secure the network is going to be (these are facts not conjectures like pretty much everything you come up with is).

Really - that is just pathetic.

Rather than slogans and stupidity I prefer considered engineering (it is obvious why you support an alt coin).

And - btw - I don't develop Bitcoin so you should be telling others to "do it" rather than myself (although I'm pretty sure they'll be even less interested in your suggestions).

Again - why the urgency?

There is no urgency - except for people like you saying "just do it".

This isn't Nike and we aren't creating running shoes in sweat shops so maybe "let's just not do it right now".

You are truly *dense* aren't you?

I said (as you quoted) that China is where the "majority of 1 tx blocks come from".

I did not say "that the majority of blocks have 1 tx" did I?

(how about you slap yourself in the face and try and wake up)

Why is it that you have such a hard time in understanding what I post (that you have to twist it and basically *lie*).

I never said that the majority of blocks are 1 tx did I?

(idiot)

You should take some lessons in "honesty" from someone (as all you do is misquote people and try to put fake words in their mouths).

It's no wonder you have no respect in this forum @franky1 as you are anything but "frank'.

(go ahead and keep making a fool of yourself - am pretty sure others are noticing you're rather good at that)

Monero is an alt with nothing like the capital that Bitcoin has behind it.

So sure - an alt can hard-fork every day of the week and no-one will complain but Bitcoin is not an alt.

Why on earth would you propose that?

You do realise that means everyone needs to upgrade their software?

(or perhaps you think of Bitcoin as being like your anti-virus software)

If it were a completely simple and painless thing to do it would have already been done (although I understand that Gavin keeps trying to promote that it is).

A hard-fork is *not* a completely simple and painless thing to do (and that is required to do this).

Also if SegWit is adopted then it basically ends up being an equivalent improvement but via a soft-fork (which is less painful).

I think it is clear that a hard-fork will happen so now it is just a question of when that will happen.

Let's just go with this point - the majority of mining is in China (where also the majority of 1 tx blocks come from) and it is well known that they do SPV mining in China.

So they aren't very keen in China to process more txs per block (and certainly not in a safe manner as SPV mining is unsafe and led to the last fork issue).

Greed is unfortunately the very basis of Bitcoin mining so that is not going to change (and it does cost a lot to run a mining operation so I'm not sure just how altruistic you could expect anyone doing this to be).

My point is that increasing the block size is not actually likely going to result in much bigger blocks (as the pools that are the majority will still keep their blocks small in order to propagate faster).

If the size was increased a lot more then this pool behaviour would likely become pathological (i.e. most blocks might end up being just 1 tx).

On the other hand technical improvements such as SegWit do offer a way forward that should work for everyone (but you just keep on saying "we need to quick fix now").

Let's me just point out that you have zero evidence of this (so it is a silly hypothetical).

Now let's get back to the real issue - there are "single tx blocks" (just the block reward) getting created every day by the major mining pools.

How are you going to fix that?

(of course you cannot fix that as you can't enforce the mining pools to include txs)

So you can increase the block size to 100MB and still end up with blocks with only 1 tx (the block reward).

Do you see how futile the idea of increasing block size is yet?

Why don't you try and just put forward a coherent argument as to why we need bigger blocks when the Chinese miners are still creating empty blocks every day (clearly they don't think there is any need to even fill up the blocks as it is)?

I do hope that you realise that if you make the block size 2MB those same mining pools that are creating blocks with 1 tx (just the block reward) will continue to do just that (and in fact you might encourage more of those blocks as they might decide that tx propagation is too much of a hassle with bigger blocks).

So the bigger you make the block size - the smaller the blocks will end up - what are you going to do then?

(btw - can you try and at least "pretend to be intelligent" rather than just insulting?)