Yes, Core nodes are losing ground slowly to bigger-blocks nodes: now around 66% Core in the node sphere.

Of course, nodes don't really matter much in this case. Only 4.4% of the last 1000 Blocks were Classic blocks.

Yes, after synchronization completes you will see your correct balance.

The client is downloading and verifying blocks from way back when the network first went up to this day, so until it reaches the block your transaction was in, it can't know about it. If you are in a hurry, you might want to use a light wallet such as Electrum.

AlexGr: That's my argument! Finally we agree!

So did you install Bitcoin Unlimited or what?

Lauda: It's not about what actually works.

Assume you're a script kiddie or just a random jerk. You have just enough wits to know telling your victims to pay you via PayPal is a bad idea, but are too lazy, dumb and unconnected to what.other options are available. Until, presto, Bitcoin! You hear it's anonymous and exactly what you need, so you're in business now!

Sure, it's not actually anonymous, but you and people like you won't figure that out until enough of you inevitably get busted.

True, but you can try to stop them from trying to find certain types of more economical methods by using a position of power to dictate what terms the market must operate under.

Nice analogy, it illustrates how we disagree. Going with the trash theme, IMO the current setup is akin to saying everything people throw away should be dumped and never touched again. Never mind that due to changing market conditions and innovation, some trash may actually be valuable to people if they can get their hands on it - recycling metals for example.

If you remove, by dictate, the ability to process "trash" beyond some arbitrary treshold, you remove the markets ability to correctly value that "trash".

Got to have young host bodies for them brain transplants when the time comes, right?

Anyhoo, how about them 420's?

This wasn't exactly your main point, but there's no certainty that fees will rise to compensate for the loss of subsidy. Miners can also simply go out of business due to unprofitability. The question really being discussed now is: "What kind of usage of the blockchain will lead to the best income for miners, and how should we decide what usage we aim for?"

This because ultimately the miners decide what kind of network they secure.

Some optimism for you guys: In the end, everyone gets to say they were right! The big-blockers will get their bigger blocks eventually. The small-blockers will feel content knowing they were right about the sky not being about to fall down immediately. The 1MB4EVA hard core will get to blame any and all subsequent problems Bitcoin experiences on the folly of changing the sacred blocksize.

re: spam, I fail to see what the problem is, unless you think miners would willingly process more tx than they can actually handle. Let the people who have to deal with the costs decide what criteria they want tx to meet. If that means "spam" by anyone else's definition gets through, then it's probably not much of a problem.

That seems like yet another NLC alt. Hey Lambie, how many accounts have you worked past newbie status now? When do the fireworks start?

Becoin,by how broad your definition of a free market appears to be, the USSR was a free market system.

The halving will certainly put the miners' faith in Core's roadmap to the test. If BTC price doesn't rally to compensate, miners will be forced to decide what policies will lead to the highest profits for them. Some will likely go bust anyway.

If I'm reading you right, you have a few things mixed up.

Trades made on exchanges are generally not made on the blockchain. The only blockchain transactions involved in trading at an exchange are when you send BTC in and withdraw BTC out. All the rest is done on the exchanges internal database and doesn't encumber the Bitcoin system at all.

I don't see how destroying small amounts of BTC would help. Miners can already decline to process transactions without fees.

Cconvert2G36: I actually meant it when I said it was a serious question. For example, what risk would there be in a small miner willing to make any size block, several gigabytes or more maybe?

So what would happen with an unlimited blocksize? Serious question - what would miners do? Would they include all tx, fee or not? Would they set a minimum fee? Would they choose a blocksize cap on their own?

Becoin: the 21 mil. cap is a different issue because Bitcoin was set up from the very start to divorce the issuance rate from resources expended by anyone. However much miners may toil, they can not significantly affect the amount of BTC issued during any given timeframe, and that's how it was from day one. (you know the caveats that apply, I'm sure.)

I put it to you that what the miners produce isn't BTC, it's the processing of transactions. I think you'll find my assertion is backed up by pretty much everything going back to the original whitepaper.

To reiterate: While changing the issuance cap is possible, everything down to the difficulty balancing shows the cap is a fundamentally hardcoded feature of BTC that isn't meant to be subject to market forces, and this is known by all participants in the economy. A cap on TX rates, instead, is a new development and a direct attempt to control the miners business practices.

AlexGR: So, in the 90's, did the IETF dictate a cap on e-mail size? No? Somehow it survived, though.

I repeat: I'd like an example of a centrally planned production quota winning out in efficiency over a free-market supply-and-demand model.

Can you give me an example where production quotas have led to more efficient production of a good than the free market method?

Oh, so the tx are valid, you just don't like the clients. Why didn't you just say so in the first place!