You continue to be a source of comedy gold.  You have been played for a fool, and now you are out on your own, alone, with nothing to fight.

The debate will continue without you - we are now deciding what size the increase will be.

You ask this on a thread titled "Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)" and see no irony at all.  

Says the guy who got involved buying miners when bitcoin was about $1100 a coin...   How did that work out for ya, champ?

You started out so positive, so hopeful. I guess bitcoin hasn't been too good a ride for you,  n'est-ce pas ?   

Sobett, brg444 is a disciple of the Wences Casares school of "Bitcoin-as-a-ponzi-scheme', where he will get rich because - 5 Billion People, right?  There is little or no argument you can make to people like that, They feel that if enough fools can be induced into buying bitcoin simply as a store of value, that the early adopters all get fabulously wealthy. They have no plan for bitcoin as a token of exchange or as a viable economic infrastructure. They are the stupid, greedy minority, who feel the world owes them a living for doing nothing.

He has no interest in bitcoin ever being used as a peer-to-peer cash system as Satoshi set out to create, and that those on both sides of the blocksize debate are trying to create.  To him it is a ponzi scheme that will make him rich.

No distinction. The 1mb block limit is dead, kaput, gone. They are just agreeing on what the new size will be.

Thats how consensus works. Sometimes it can get messy, but as long as the destination is not in question, nobody gives a shit about how we get there.

brg444/tvcof: give it up. you have lost. Its going to be big blocks, the only details they are deciding is how big.

You have failed your blockstream paymasters. I hope their retribution upon you is slow and merciless.... They are clever people and they do not suffer fools like you gladly.

 

And thats what is happening - no argument there.


So its just a question of scheduling? Fair enough. But if the larger portion of Miners and Pools want them sooner than you, you will support them, right?

But that's possible, isn't it? I mean hashing rate is probabilistic.  If you take a narrow sample you can easily find boundary cases proliferate. But then if you take the sample as a whole, then the 'averages' will dominate. While your pool did well for that run of blocks, there had to be another n blocks where the difficulty was over 200%.

So its not random overall.  But any sample will appear to be.

We will see. It looks like we are getting bigger blocks in the new year, whether its XT or Core - doesn't matter. I imagine that without upward price pressure on transactions  the sidechain adoption curve will flatten significantly. But it will happen, and I'm sure it will be successful at offering an alternative model for low value/high frequency transactions - but not at the expense of those who choose to transact  directly on the chain.

Thats the key take away here. Nobody cares who he hates, or who he wants to shove his d into, or who should resign or who should run for president.
 
What he is saying is - "I dont give a shit what your reasons are Core, but give me big blocks or I wont support you..."


Its big blocks all the way, yo.   

Once a large proportion of low value transactions are moved onto sidedchains, they need far fewer transactions on the bloackchain to support them.  The increase in transaction size is very small (assuming they dont go mad with the spv scripts) and will have plenty of room in the now near empty blocks.

So much for having me on ignore, you retard.  Lying is just second nature to you, isn't it?

You re right - it is entirely subjective. The user may feel that they get more economic value by putting it on a sidechain. But at least they will have the choice.

I'm sure they can figure out a way to monetize it when they roll out well developed  shrink wrapped sidechain implementations

How many times, in how many threads, does this need to be pointed out to you?

read it here again

Yes, sorry. Not since the days of the zx81 has a kilobyte been so important.! 

I'm sure that will happen - but it will happen in the context of an open market on the blockchain.

Stick to your small blocks then, and fork off into a footnote in the history of bitcoin, Carlton

Of course it is. To make a compelling business case fro sidechains, there has to be a large volume of traffic. The best way to get this volume ( without creating it or finding it yourself) is o take it from the existing traffic. If fee's can be forced upwards, it makes it easier to coax that traffic from native bitcoin to a privately run sidechain.

I should point out that I have no beef with the idea of sidechains. Or LN for that matter. But I feel they need to stand on their own merits, and compete for traffic on their own merits, and not through a competitive advantage achieved by an artificial price distortion.

If I was lambie, I would be inserting bouncing ponies here.  

Yeah, you truly are handicapped - finally something I agree with you on.    (joking)

Blocksize is already dynamic. Have a look at the recent block sizes, they vary from 300kb to over 900kb. Edit:  fixed to kb. Thanks RealBitcoin

However, it will be always limited by whatever max blocksize is set to. Dynamic dosn't mean infinite.

And you are right, as max size gets larger, spam attacks are disincentiveised, so not sure why you say that.  

And when that happens, we win.

Once blocks can grow at their own rate, blockstream will be in competition with native bitcoin, with no unfair advantage. And thats really whats going on here. Nobody gives a shit about XT v. Core.  Its about maintaining a level playing field.