"I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of Satoshi."-- Sergey Panteleevich Mavrodi, Russian criminal financial visionary and a former deputy of the State Duma, founder of MMM Global Republic of Bitcoin pyramid scheme.

I'm not sure where you life so that "our" hardware is not capable of using bigger blocks. In practically all countries i know it would be no problem at all.

Might depend on where you live.

Russia is this years China 

And it can be easily traced back to you if you buy an illegal service.

Also it will be difficult to buy said service in the USA if you live in Europe or asia.

Ofcourse people will ask bitcoin for this type of stuff now, it is the safest and most convenient way for them, but this was also the case when cash had this status.

And big miners are a problem: if one miner is more than 51% of the network, you can kiss your monetary freedom goodbye. Remember? So lets not pretend that centralising mining can ever be construed as good for Bitcoin; every wave of centralisation brings us closer to a situation where those miners decide whether you're allowed to use their network or not.

Apparently, the suppressed Bitcoin XT is permitted a full explanation of it's position, but the position of the Bitcoin Core censors deserves zero explanation whatsoever. Roger has a strange way of representing both sides of the debate, as he claims to adhere to.

Someone promoting a centralising solution to the scaling problem cannot also claim to be an anarchist.

Did you ever stop to think that some of us have legitimate concerns about the existing proposals to raise the block size?

I already have certain difficulties running a full node (if I don't change some settings to gimp it, it will often happily consume enough of my bandwidth to bring other internet uses to a crawl) and I have dedicated hardware and top tier home internet speeds.

There is no ulterior motive here. I don't plan to modify my Bitcoin holdings regardless of the exchange rate (I don't speculate at all, ever).

I am what I would consider a Bitcoin fanatic. Beyond the idealistic reasons that I choose to use Bitcoin, I have plenty to lose (financially) if Bitcoin drops in value (and plenty to gain if it increases in value). If I am concerned about my ability (as a Bitcoin fanatic) to run a full node with the current anti-spam (has spam been fixed by the way?) 1MB block size limit in place, what is going to happen when the data I need to share with my peers doubles (or increases 8-fold, wtf!)? When Bitcoin fanatics have doubts about running a full node, I would imagine that the robustness of the decentralized network has been harmed.

Yes, I am of the opinion that I absolutely must run a full node to take full advantage of Bitcoin.

So, before we take the training wheels off the software, perhaps we should take a long hard look at network efficiency (and that fucking miserable database).

In order for Bitcoin to provide us with censorship-proof transactions, it needs to function (and function well) in situations where Bitcoin data is difficult to share. This task obviously becomes more difficult when the amount of data to be shared is increased! Call me crazy, but I won't be happy until the Bitcoin network is running smoothly on a worldwide distributed wireless mesh network (this is what I think needs to happen in order to keep Bitcoin transactions censorship-proof).

What you call a "psyops divide-and-conquer blocksize consensus attack", I call genuine disagreement (and after reading this forum for the past few month, possible inability to reach agreement).

I've used Bitcoin for going on five years now and I can count the number of transactions I've made on my fingers and toes. Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist.

Sorry, but I don't see anything good in it. This system if applied will be heavily abused. And I don't see any merits on its own when compared to a purely free-market regulation of the amount of money in circulation

I guess you could say that centralization on Ethereum mining is a problem, but that will be overcome when the network switches to PoS. They are still nailing the details for this transition.
There are very talented people behind the project.

Well then fucking call it a minB, for the minimum btc amount for all I care.  But there are way, WAY too many units of measure in this world and the conversion factors become a nightmare after a while--or at the very best, an unnecessary inconvenience.  And besides, that amount (0.00005460 btc) is not a fixed amount, am I right?

I agree, don't name it.  I don't even like mBTC.  Just satoshi for anything less than a full btc or simply write it out to the decimal.  No confusion that way, is there?

FYI there is no 1g limit of any kind when it comes to gold. Fractional bars ranging from 0.025-0.5g from Nadir refinery were pretty popular back in the days.

Here's an example of 0.1g bar:



More useful as a key ring rather than investment though.

But we already have satoshi, bits, mbits, etc. Why do we need more name?