Maybe I'm working too hard to pay much attention but this isn't even a rally yet in my eyes, we are just finally recovered from The Goxxing.

As far as Finex goes, if it can still Gox bitcoiners after the repeated warnings and huge red flags over the past several years... well, they deserve it.

Those two things were also true from late April 29th to mid May 1st but there was no backlog what-so-ever, in fact blocks weren't even full. I guess traders only spam take advantage of unique trading positions on weekdays. Someone should inform them that Bitcoin isn't the stock market and functions on weekends as well.

Maybe the "spammers" are very religious and rest on Sundays!

The block chain is constantly growing.


Yes.


Armory needs the entire block chain in order to function properly. If your hardware can't hold the entire block chain, it's simply not going to work.


Of course there is. Start Armory offline and extract your private keys then import them into a wallet which doesn't require the complete block chain.

Oh? That's great! Could you point out some of the features which have replaced the function of the 1 MB limit?

Well, then they got conned. Caveat emptor!

Also, I call bullshit. People want Bitcoin because of it's unique properties which are possible thanks to decentralization. Who gives a fuck about sending a few micro transactions for free when governments worldwide are preventing people from using (or even continuing to own) their own fucking money?

Why does everyone get their panties in a bunch over some comment about the fucking reality regarding the existing rules of the network which require a hard fork to change, and ignore the real point of my post which was to call out people who are actually supporting a 51% attack on one prong of a chain existing after a possible contentious hard fork?

So you decided to trade other objects of value for the ability to amend the block chain under the assumption that certain properties will "fixed" down the road via a hard fork?

A PDF document is more important than the code which implements the very protocol which every node on the network must abide by?

Those things makes perfect sense...

Oh... and another Bravo for ignoring the meat and potatoes of my post to quibble about block size.

The onus is on whoever splits (implements incompatible changes) to insure their fork is "clean". Attacking the other prong of the fork is a fucking disgraceful method to achieve those ends.

You've ignored the meat and potatoes of my post to quibble about who and how many people support certain size blocks and the motivations of someone we haven't heard from in 6 years. Bravo.

"We" is anyone who adopted Bitcoin with the 1 MB limit in place. What, are you just going to hand wave away the fact that it requires a hard fork to remove? Geeze...

Some of us joined Bitcoin with the 1 MB block size limit in place. In other words, this is what we signed up for.

Now it's an "attack" because we don't want to make changes to the protocol we've accepted for all these years?

You are only calling it a "covert attack" because you need an excuse to attempt to justify using hash power to aggressively attack those who want to remain with the existing chain.

Refusing to make an incompatible change to an already existing protocol and functioning network is not aggression towards those who want to implement that change, therefore it's not an attack. Those who don't want to change are not actively preventing those who do want change from actually doing it.

Actively employing hash power in order to prevent a previously functioning network from continuing it's chain is, however, aggression towards the users of that chain, and therefore an attack. Those who do want change are actively preventing those who do not from continuing in peace.

We currently have a functioning network with existing rules in place. If you decide to make an incompatible change to those rules and thus create a new, separate network, that's your prerogative and I fully support your ability to do that. But when you start talking about aggressively attacking those users and miners who decide they are not interested in adopting an incompatible change and simply want to stick with the already existing, functioning network, you've gone too far.

Imagine there was no block size debate. Imagine a group came along and started loudly clamoring for a block reward increase. Imagine they convinced a few pool operators (enough for a majority of the hash rate) that a block reward increase was a good idea. Imagine that they implemented the change, and forked away from the rest of network. Now imagine that after the fork, those pool operators decided to attack the original chain to prevent it from functioning. You would be screaming bloody murder from the rooftops. Yet, when the incompatible change is something that you want, all sense of decency and civility goes out the window and you turn into a bloodthirsty idiot.

Anyone rationalizing using hashing power to attack a functioning network and it's user base is toxic to the community and should be called out for suggesting such appalling behavior.

Wall spotted, BitStamp. 1k bid at spot.

Bahahahahahaha...

All I know is that when the shit show ends, Bitcoin will take the full blame and suffer because of it...

It's almost like... these events are planned in advance... nah couldn't be.

Some part of me hopes that since this is a reoccurring theme (getting Finexed), the damage can't be all that substantial.

Surely no one here still uses Finex?

Please, please mighty pool operator overlords, let the plebs have big blocks!

Oh how I wish to be one of those "useful idiots" finding block after block on my CPU...

Wall sighting. 600 some coins. Bearstamp.

Edit: Well that didn't last.

There are already cryptocurrencies with permanent monetary inflation. Use one of those and leave us pitiful Bitcoiners alone. Thanks!

Your mining pool operator overlords approve this message!

A large portion of the community may want bigger blocks, but a larger portion of the community, measured by every metric besides pool operators, want a real scaling solution.

No, you aren't advocating for what I want. Giving more control to miners (which is what BU does) is not conducive to a censorship-proof Bitcoin.

I never suggested that I am better suited than satoshi to plan Bitcoin's future. However, I am willing to consider the opinions of many experts who are actively involved in Bitcoin. Since we've already had this argument and you've apparently forgotten, I'll quote myself to save time.


Making blocks larger does not necessarily mean that miners will earn more transaction fees. Larger blocks will simply fill up with free transactions until there is once again pressure to compete to have your transaction included in the next block. Once there is pressure again, coffee drinkers will resume their complaining or the blocks will have to be made even larger. That's not a valid solution for either coffee drinkers or decentralizationists.

Using a second layer which can aggregate many small transactions (with small fees) into a single on-chain transaction (with a large fee) is beneficial for both coffee drinkers and decentralizationists, however.

There will only be demand for Bitcoin transactions if Bitcoin offers something unique, which in my mind is a system which allows censorship-proof transactions and a seize-proof store of value. Increasing the resources required to maintain the block chain is in direct opposition to the properties which promote decentralization. A system where you have to record every transaction into a permanent ledger which all full nodes must maintain forever will never be able to compete with centralized solutions when it comes to speed and efficiency, so I'm not sure why we should base future improvements on attempting the impossible when we can base them on strengthening the very properties which gives Bitcoin it's unique use cases and thus it's value.

There is no mainstream demand for Bitcoin transactions (I'm not sure why "big blockers" like to pretend there is). The only people who will find it valuable are those who are willing to intentionally evade the capital controls implemented by their governments. Pretending it can compete with more efficient, centralized solutions while maintaining the properties that make it valuable, and attempting to "improve" the protocol based on those imaginary use cases, is pure folly. The average debt slave can't even write a check for $500, so I'm not sure why anyone would think they are going to purchase bitcoins in order to make their everyday, mundane purchases.

Pretending other cryptocurrencies (which must also maintain a permanent ledger) won't run into the same issues as Bitcoin should they obtain similar usage is silly.

I think I've fully acknowledged every possibility in your post.

If true (in bold), we wouldn't be having this same discussion for the past three, maybe four, years now.

But hey, I know you wouldn't dare let a little truth interfere with your narrative.

Beg your pool operator overlords to fix it for you!

They can do it via the