Yeah, it comes from the bitcoin.org Github, so it seems somewhat creditable.
I don't actually know where it originally came from though.
Maybe from an early Bitcoin release, like v 0.1.0, or something.

What about this? This says its Satoshi Nakamoto's PGP Key.
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/commit/19e0c74df2162d4510db5df9e50d5ac53b38c498

Well it all comes down to, who wants the most economic control?
If you can control this system (when it or if it becomes full mainstream), you can control the world, ultimately.
A new era of economic control over humanity can come into existence, if governments take actual control to the system.

I assume the USA would attempt control, China Gov doesn't really trust or understand it, or pretend they don't.
There may be mandated Government Transfer Nodes that all nodes must pass tx through, in the USA, I don't know.
If your Node or company Node does not pass the data, that Node is considered illegal and will be raided under new laws.

I see it like this... Coinbase, Bitpay, all those companies must conform to regulations and laws within their respective countries.
They are based on bitcoin and sell/trade/etc bitcoin, but they must conform to the laws.
But Bitcoin/bitcoin is outside all of that, currently. It can not conform nor be controlled in its current state.

We can not allow Bitcoin/bitcoin to be regulated or changed to allow it to be conformed into a normal company and be governed by laws.


And I ask again, Is it really possible to have our cake and eat it too? I don't know, I have no technical background.

My point is, if it truly becomes the system of our dreams, where everyone uses it for everything,
wouldn't the government co-op it under National Security interests and mandate total control in ways unknowable now?

I'm not concerned about non-governmental centralization, only the centralization that can effect an individuals rights.

The internet is not controlled by anyone, but it can be shut off in many countries during emergencies or "other", including the USA.

I'm no expert, I'm far from it. I'm actually a noob.
But how could it reasonably be possible to be both?
The more mainstream it gets, in theory, it should be easier for the governments to exert control over it.
The only reason Bitcoin/bitcoin has survived is, I believe, governments can't actually control a decentralized system.
Who owns it? Who runs it? Where is it maintained?
Because of that, governments have left it alone. Legally, it is hard to control.

So, if it did get gigantic (say 200 million users each with 3-4 daily txs each) how can it also remain immune to gov control?
How can we have our cake and eat it too?

This is basically it right here:


The above is the real argument, everything else is FUD and just craziness.

Do we want it to handle all world daily transactions,
or do we want protection from current monetary systems and government involvement?

Great find! I am reading it now. Thanks.

I believe, but not 100%, Litecoin has a 4mb block size currently.
It was originally programmed that way, not implemented later.

Edit: But yes, Litecoin's daily txs combined are not even more than 200kb.

This is my favorite part of the translation:


But seriously, google translate is usually decent, but this time seemed a little off. 

Started buying your BTC again with Gift Cards I purchase based on your request.

All cards are bought with cash and receipts are available if requested.

Please pm for a quicker response.

Even if the block cap was raised to 100MB, the miners could still cap their individual block sizes down to 1MB.
Raising the cap allows the miners to have a choice to add more tx (and assuming with fees) when they want to or in times of need.

In theory, even if we raised the 1MB cap, miners could all agree to cap their blocks to 1MB forever anyway.
That is my understanding at least.

You need to be more specific.
Where are you setting up an account?

32mb was the original amount and the change to 1mb was to prevent a potential spam attack while the system was still in its infancy.

Stupid, did I say Satoshi gave bitcoin its value? I didn't say anything, that you are saying I said.
Are you drunk or just a troll? Maybe you are a bot.
Shocking that so many people talk in txt speak or spell incorrectly as common practice, on this forum.

I agree with you. I was just responding to DannyHamilton's statement.
Many users would want this whole situation to be resolved amicability and for the good of the system,
but only Satoshi's single word could actually do that.
Since that is very likely not to happen for many different reasons, including what you stated above,
we are all going to spin in circles until something bad happens.

He is the only person that when voicing his opinion in this matter, could actually be considered unbiased,
since he was the creator and in theory would make the best choice for Bitcoin/bitcoin, and not for himself.

His decision in this matter, if 100% verified to be him, would end the debate immediately, IMO.

But, as I have said many times, I believe he is no longer living as well.

Satoshi's speculation is what created Bitcoin/bitcoin and it is ours that gives it its value.

So you are saying that Bitcoin has failed based on the whitepaper so soon,
and we need to manipulate a fixed market (fee market) to give higher fees to the miners immediately,
and the miners aren't requesting a fixed market or a raise in fees yet?

I understand this conversation in the future, say 10-20 years maybe, but now?

That was my understanding and I assumed everyone's understanding.
In theory, if everything goes according to original concept,
when fees need to take over, btc value should easily cover all mining costs.

Can you provide me a link or anything to this being an actual law on the books?
This is important information if true.
I'm not a trader on localbitcoins, but would I be obligated to ask what the bitcoins will be used for, before selling?

Edits: corrected typos

I will also not vote in this poll since I want the middle choice, as well.
The question currently is to vote on whether not to change or for extreme change. Both are equally undesirable.

I want to protect the current bitcoin economy and the systems that are built upon it,
but I also want evolution that will prevent potential monopolies, no matter where they come from.

EDIT: Sorry. I didn't read your last statement about not commenting unless your a veteran.
          I only commented because I want the third choice.