Do you really want to play that route? Because we can both do this.

I fixed yours as well, no charge

Worrying about the Bitcoin network's limit based on today's bandwidth limit is like worrying about torrenting Blu-rays in the days of dial-up.

And from the creator himself:

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then,
sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Satoshi Nakamoto

Who the fuck would give MP money, are you batshit insane?

Mircea Popescu... Josh Garza... what's the difference???

Reddit comment that shits on Mircea Popescrackapipescu gets the most upvotes:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yjqce/gavin_andresen_optimistic_about_scaling_bitcoin/

"... cue Mircea Popescu and his Scooby Gang: "Gavincoin's gunna be worthless! Respect mah arbitrary block size limit cause: incoherent ideological economix reasonz." Current value of the limit is arbitrary, that's not even a question. There being some limit makes sense (to prevent flooding), but demanding to treat the current value as immutable is an insult to your own intelligence.

Satoshi pointed out years ago already, at some point, as the network grows, we probably want to do something like
if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit

Makes sense, unless of course you have a very different plan for the network in mind...
The only good (EDIT) logically valid, but still pretty bad reason I can see to be categorically against adjusting max block size as the network grows (adjust the limit, not remove it entirely) is if you would like Bitcoin to turn into "semi fungible high limit poker chips for the elite" in the long run. (I like that description, took it from here.)" - Oda_Krell

There is no argument with a brain dead shill like yourself. I'm always correct.

I have achieved what I've set out for: because of your weakness in wanting validation (and mostly stupidity), you have revealed your position as a paid shill. So long as you remain predictable as another needy ape flapping his gums, you are your own worst enemy and I won't have to lift a finger.

Plebeians like you just can't comprehend the bigger scheme of things, and therefore my intelligence isn't wasted on vegetables like yourself.


Checkmate.

We're just in the handle phase of the cup+handle formation. A bigger movement is yet to come.

Way too fucking early for a rally.

First off, nobody is going anywhere without Gemini and the Bitlicense. Any premature rally will get dumped on by miners from China.

Secondly and somewhat related to first point: nobody is going anywhere without the big ETF, which is dependent on Gemini proving that the market in the West won't easily be raped by the Chinese dump monkeys.

Lastly and most importantly, we're constantly skirting with the blocksize limit. The moment volume picks up and we see tens of thousands of unconfirmed transactions disregarded into the void, the media will scream about how flaky bitcoin is as a method of payment, to which the newbs will dump coins faster than fat kid after eating Taco Bell.

In 2015, we are in the "2012" phase of quiet transition. Nobody is going anywhere after the 80% slow bleed. None. Infrastructure is building at a rapid phase and the mainstream media is none the wiser. This is in fact, a good thing.

Just wait until the Winkies gets their hall pass from Uncle Ben, the ETF gets their stamp from Uncle Sam, and Gavincoin goes live, then perhaps we are due for The Big Fucking Rally, and then it's lights out for fiat.

Remember that before blowing off Gavin and the blog I linked above, keep in mind that he has a Ph.D., is the chief scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, and is a core developer.

He might be *slightly* more qualified to propose any changes or lackthereof to the Bitcoin protocol than your guru, Mircea  

What numbers have I given, or have you pulled more imaginary numbers out of your ass and called it my number as well?

You profess to tell the truth no matter what... and this is the best you come to me with???

Perhaps instead of speculating with numbers you claimed yourself, to have been pulled out of your ass, read Gavin's quantitative analysis on blockchain scalability where a claim is backed up with actual numbers:

http://gavintech.blogspot.de/2015/01/looking-before-scaling-up-leap.html

Bitcoin is for everyone, but the early adopters will be the new elites.

The either-or dichotomy in the poll is asinine.

I run a full node. Those who votes in favor of the size increase actually uses the blockchain directly, and the reason for them doing so is to not have to pass through a central gatekeeper like Paymium in the first place.

... if you're pulling numbers out of your ass, and reality shows you a different number, then you're wrong. Clear and simple.

Correction, your goal is to tell what you believe is the truth, whether that aligns with The Truth or not is a different matter.

That's already taken into account. The Americans nodes supports Gavin.
The Chinese are pragmatic and will follow Gavin.
There can be no victory against the majority.

Then it's back to all things equal, the more numerous consensus will win. Poll above has writing on the wall.

Of course, 20MB fake nodes. What's your point?  

I understand that English isn't your first language and your country lost several wars, but it looks like you're juggling three different criticisms coming at you like a whore juggling three cocks... You seem rather overextended...

This is just a precedent of what happens when the 20MB blockchain rolls out and you try to run your piddly little 1MB chain.

 

Bitcoin is whatever the fuck I say it is. Your opinion is your own, get over it.

There are sets of consensus rules that people like me will simply use to overpower your curated gold, and there is very little you can do about it given that the core developers has the backing of the masses.

Just like the French Revolution, the third and fourth estate will be responsible for the downfall of the first estate.
Know your history, Frenchman.

The reality is that derps like me vastly outnumbers tinpot dictators like you, and we'll park ourselves on Bitcoin and expand the blocksize by sheer weight of consensus.

We will feast on the network and write whatever the fuck we want on The Holy Ledger.

What are you going to do about that?