I am arguing with your argument that Bitcoin should stay at 1MB in order to prove Nash's theory/belief to be correct.

I accept that it is inevitable that an international currency will come about that supplants all central banks and their policies.

I think when Nash refers to "alternative options", he is referring to bitcoin, but bitcoin will not be the international currency.
Bitcoin will be the "alternative option" to the "international currency". That "international currency" will peg to an
"international gold" that this international body will regulate and control. Bitcoin will be your only option for free
unrestricted transaction.

It may be a conspiracy theory, but could you prove that it isn't true for a report to advice the
World Financial Bodies that there is nothing to worry about and to defer their power and control
to these Chinese kids who sleep next to their rigs in the middle of nowhere? I don't think any world
leaders or financial leaders would take such a risk. In fact, they would likely be advised to do the
opposite. Even the Chinese government would tell them to take a walk.

I'm arguing that they will jump those theories you cite and use their own e-currency and drop fiat.
Satoshi created Bitcoin to beat them to the punch so that individuals will not be subjected to their total
control in that future. Satoshi didn't create e-gold for them to use, he created e-gold to prevent their
total dominance.

No, you are assuming you understand what is actually occurring behind the scenes now.
It could be possible that Chinese intelligence controls all the mining facilities within China,
even miners/pools that are favorable to Core's point of view, could be intelligence agents.
No one truly knows what is actually occurring, so you do not need multiple protestors or
whatever. Enemies of the system could possible have already embedded themselves within
the developers or more importantly, the miners. Bitcoin is interesting because one of the
experiments it is conducting is whether it can overcome even that. And due to that even
being a remote possibility, in any form of combination, means that Bitcoin can never have
a true stable value. World governments or banking systems will peg to their own controlled
system, not a free system with unknown mining entities.

Bitcoin can never be the world's new gold that financial systems will rely upon because it is
contrary to their nature. Deflationary systems erodes their control, so thus they will never
accept it. In fact, they can't rational it. They would more likely use a blockchain that is editable.

Bitcoin is like the new gold, but that does not mean the powers that be will use it if we capture
it for them. in fact, they will likely destroy us and make their own version.

Bitcoin is a digital gold & currency and needs to scale, in whatever way, over time.

You are incorrect. Attackers or protestors do not care about incentives.
They are empowered and driven by ideals, like suicide bombers. They do
not care about what you believe they should care about. They are viewing
the situation from a non-human perspective, sometimes higher and non-base
(irrelevant as to whether it is moral or not).

You are relying upon short term human nature. Some humans do not care about money.
Some only care about power, control, creation, or destruction.

My ultimate point is that Bitcoin's mining mechanism is the factor that prevents a stable value.
Bitcoin can never be what you envision it can be because stable value is an illusion with this system.
Bitcoin is fundamentally indefinitely unstable due to the mining mechanism.

If you want a NashCoin for your purposes, it needs to be fully autonomous from start to end.
(Designed, created, run, mined, exchanged, held, bought and sold by thinking machines.)

Miners have the power to create blocks that contain no txs, other than the coinbase.
If they did this on purpose as an attack or as a protest, wouldn't that automatically violate
your premise that Bitcoin is already "locked in" and in an unchangeable state and thus nothing
should be done about TPS from this point forward? You previously alluded to TPS increases in
any manner hurts the value and leads to an ultimate devaluation to near zero.

The price is volatile because the value is speculative and not locked it.

If the parameters are locked in, what would be the valuation of bitcoin if
miners stop including all txs? So if the valuation drops, then bitcoin's price
dumps and you can not transact, and if the valuation increases then bitcoin's
price pumps and you still can not transact.

Your theory of "locked in" stagnation is malicious to a real world system.

Likely not since if you indeed generated a High S tx then you will need to perform another tx
where your signature uses the v0.11.1 mandated low S.



Yes, Abandon transaction and create a new one if the coins did not "appear" in your wallet.
They will not be accepted on the network until you redo with a new tx, according to HI-TEC99.

Your transaction would reach the mempool whether a low fee or not.
The problem is that your txs have not been broadcasted and is likely related to your client.

Also, you can ignore the alert key warning. Bitcoin Core has discontinued the alert message system.
But if you are having trouble with your client, you may need to upgrade to a newer version since what
you are using now is so far back that many things have changed. If you wish to continue with your client,
you could manually push your raw txs from another source like this: https://blockchain.info/pushtx

I'm not an expert, but I'm sure AChow101 will come along and explain you need a newer client and why.

IMO, UASF is too risky to attempt.

What is important to keep in mind is that even if Bitcoin remains unchanged forever,
even SegWit SF will not be enough to facilitate LN fully. For LN to work properly, it will need
a blocksize increase in the future so that channel openings and closures can all settle within
the time allotted. LN will help with instant txs and higher tps, but it needs more than 1MB
settlement space eventually.

So some community members who think never changing Bitcoin's protocol ever again is a
great/correct/moral idea, are actually short term speculative investors who are incentivized
to cause a blockage between the two sides, so that they can bail at the highest price possible
while also leaving the network crippled forever. They don't care about what makes Bitcoin
special (everything other than the price), they only see it as a simple financial instrument to
be used and abused.

The truth is that Bitcoin needs to balance over time. Stop with the extremes already.
It is the middle path or we all lose (except for the most malicious of the community).

If it was for the banks, why didn't he patent the whole system or certain parts of it and
market or sell directly to the banks. Instead Satoshi attempted to release it in a manner
that would be the most fair and free. He outlined and released it within communities that
believed in the opposite of what you are now saying.

It may be true that in the future only banks would be using this system, but that will only
be due to technological limitations and expenses and not because that was Satoshi's original
intention.
 


I have no agenda, unlike you. I only want Bitcoin to balance through time since that is the
most secure future. You would enslave humanity if it benefit you and your ego.

That is not what i read.
The final conclusions of this argument type is that we can never scale because it will destroy its inherent value.

The whole argument is that we can not have a blockchain that banks use as settlement and for users to transact.
It must be one or the other and if we change anything NOW, it will transform into that one or other forever.

Meaning we stay and work with banks with high value, or we expand and lose value through time.

What did Satoshi lie about?

No, the blocksize debate exists because some think we can scale now and others think we need to scale later.
Then you come along and say we can never scale and we should try to market directly to world banks.

You are advocating we solicit the very institutions that Satoshi created Bitcoin to counteract.
You are an extremist with possible mania, who can not argue without personally attacking people.

You have all those quotes sitting in a word document at the ready like a good manic fundamentalist.

Continue with your incoherent statements that never end in a true conclusion because your only goal
is to maintain 1MB at all costs, including preventing second layered solutions.

Your whole theory is flawed because of mining.
The banking sector will never accept Bitcoin because of how mining is performed.
If they ever think it has merit to attach itself upon, it will be a new coin where nation
states are the sole miners in competition with other nation states.

You have taken Nash's theories and placed them into something that was created
without that original intention and now attempting to argue for capture and hold it
to your ideal. The truth of the matter is you are talking out of your ass in an attempt
to create a new type of extremism within the Bitcoin community. Its borderline Psy-Ops.

You are a true "1MB4EVA" extremest. We should call your kind a Fundamental IMB Jihadist.
Instead of the "Unlimited blocksize" extreme, you want "Smallest blocksize" extreme.

Bitcoin should be balance over time.

People like you are one of the reasons there can't be consensus on certain things.
You are being purposefully malicious, whether consciously or unconsciously.

The problem is you are assuming that the banking sector will use it and not their
own government approved cryptocurrency version.

If we restrict ourselves now, with dreams of world banking use and that doesn't occur,
then what is the course of action?

Lol. When Satoshi did it, the community at the time did not complain in the way in which you are insinuating.
I think you have an incorrect view on how Bitcoin exists and will exist into the future.

In a way, your view is possibly the most malicious viewpoint I have ever witnessed within the community.

Yes, but that only holds true in 2017.
It is only a digital gold now because of technological restrictions, not due to design.

A blocksize increase will occur one day in the future, that is a fact.
To prevent that from happening is almost impossible.

Accept what?
You do understand that in a moments notice, we may have to make emergency changes, right?
Your argument ignores the realities in which we live. You assume there will be no trouble ahead.

Sounds like a bad investor with his head in the sand. You better sell bags buddy.