You seem to like BCH a lot, which IMO is not a rational strategy. This dissonance is unresolved as yet. A few reasons:

- BCH doesn't fix transaction malleabilty, ruling out L2 solutions which are the scaling solution in the medium (possibly long) term.

- BCH is controlled by a cartel. Their coders are clueless. The cartel is likely under the heavy hand of PBOC. They use guerrilla tactics (esp. transaction spam) to gain control.

- Big blocks will stifle adoption. Yes, that's the old "Raspberry pi in rural Afghanistan" argument. Even I, not in rural Afghanistan, would stop my own homespun node (not a pi though) if pressed by bandwidth and storage limits. "Be your own bank" implies the ability to run your own full verifying node.

- More adoption will come when we have a scalable system. Big blocks aren't scalable.

You know all these things already. You are too intelligent not to see the logical implications. So, my fuzzy inference is: you have other reasons. Not saying you are necessarily a paid shill, although it can't be ruled out. The "more reason" I was (and am) asking of you is an effective, documented rebuttal of my points or some subjective reason that goes beyond "I like big big big! Blocks big, me happy!" Something like "I was bitten by a small block when I was a child, try to understand my shock" would be a little better, but as you understand, still not quite satisfactory.

Music also helps to keep us young. See the incredible age managed by famous conductors, often still in full activity.

I've kept on using the original Opera well into my Windows XP years. It used to be the best browser under all aspects. Fast, secure, customizable, dependable, obedient to the user (not to the website).
Unfortunately, they weren't able to maintain their Presto engine anymore, so they switched to Chromium, and now Opera is only a Chrome clone with a difference. I'm still using it on the sites where it works, but most of my browsing is on Firefox these days.

I'd say a cable can't hurt. It really depends on the bandwidth required. Not sure GPU mining can actually manage without a solid ethernet cable. A full (non mining) bitcoin node would at least choke a bit on wifi.
For authoritative answers, you'd better wait for one of our miners to chime in.

You mean you get out of here? 
J/k, we need some contrary voices sometimes.
Keyword: SOMETIMES! 

And - sorry for repeated posting, but I'm getting a bit excited - is there any new gospel from masterluc? Was the last dip "it"?

Not at all impossible. Now could be a nice time to long some of them futures if one had balls and access to the platform. Or better yet last week, with a slightly larger dose of balls.

Thanks for cheering up, fabiorem and conspirosphere! My favorite indicators (RSI/Stoch RSI) are still all in neutral (around 0), that's why I asked  

EDIT: on the 12h chart, I mean.

Going up nicely. Small bulltrap or real lift?

And you, try and take a look at the other github.

I haven't worked out estimates of jbreher's (or anyone else's) stash, but the man strikes me as a rational thinker with much at stake since a long time. So I also tried to understand the reasons for his choice, and I asked him explicitly. Unfortunately, his explanations with regard to bigblockery/Verism etc. always came short. Disappointing underperformance for a good poster, accurate checker of facts, numerical literate such as he is.

Double size, double number of transactions (on average), double cost.
IMO the issue is that if the ones who spam are miners who pocket most of the fees anyway, it's much too cheap to spam.

If it's majority miners, it's not "regardless". They can rely on mining a large percentage of blocks, which in turn means a large percentage of the fees they paid get back to them.

Agreed. IMO the way to up the price of spamming is not having larger blocks, because a significant percent of those blocks get mined by the spammer anyway - be they large or small blocks. A better solution would be to have really widespread mining, so the attackers know that their chances of pocketing back their own spam fees are low.

My bad. I didn't write clearly (and I was not being accurate anyway).
I meant 1 satoshi as the transaction amount, not the fee. I know dust transactions are discarded anyway, but I meant "amount as low as can be". A bit of an exaggeration, admittedly.


Jbreher is usually accurate in his factual statements, and his math is usually flawless. However, he does have his bigblocker agenda in his mind when he posts. He failed to mention bandwidth and latency, which are the real bottlenecks - more so than storage or computing power.

I don't know what else you wanted to express, but you made yourself quite clear on these points. Don't think about the barrier - just say what you mean in the best way you manage. I think communication is just fine.

Merry Xmas everybody!

Storage is not the only problem. Bouncing big blocks around also causes bandwidth and latency issues.

Among other reasons: because, as our good Mayor implies in his reply, a hardfork is required to increase the block size. A hardfork is not unplanned for, but when it happens it should include a bundle of fixes, not just a quick bandaid.
Besides, the bandaid can't really solve the problem, even momentarily: if the spammers are willing to spam no matter what, they can as easily fill double-sized blocks with 1-satoshi transactions.

Because any small increase can be spammed for a small increase of the cost.
We need more competition among miners. If possible, we need it before LN even launches, or at least takes off. Onchain transaction fees will likely increase when LN works at full regimen. In any case, we must make sure that when the would-be spammers want to disrupt LN, they tackle that wall of higher fees without the significant "miner monopoly discount" they have right now.

Back from beer time. More than one, actually. One too many, probably.
No dip to speak of. Awright, I'll check back later.
Gentlemen...

Hm, I'm a bit envious. I started higher, two increasing chunks on falling prices and then more at 12k. Ready for just a little bit moar around 11k. Any ballpark suggestion for a limit buy order while I'm out for a beer?

Cheap corn buy orders set up just in case.

Competition.
If you mine half the blocks, on average you know you will pocket 50% of the fees you spend to spam. So you spend 50 to spam 100, and you have a 50% discount on the cost of spamming.

If you mine 1/3 of the blocks, you only pocket 33% of the fees. Spend 66 to spam 100.

If you mine 1/n of the blocks, you only get a 1/n discount. If n is large enough, the discount is negligible and you spam as much as you spend. That's what a healthy fee market ensures.

Unfortunately, he current fee market isn't in good health. The cause is mining centralization, too little competition, so n is small. The 1/n discount for spammers is good enough for their pockets. Let BTC price and mining competition rise, and we'll be rid of the spam. Transaction fees will be due to real transaction pressure only.

Do you really? Unassume.