I agree with this.

The primary issue at hand is that most people here for Bitcoin are under the idea that Bitcoin is an investment and is something that you should hodl until its price goes super high and then you can sell and make a profit. Of course, this is an issue if you want to use Bitcoin as actual money, and not just for investment purposes. I think that we need to work on changing people's mindsets about Bitcoin as an investment to Bitcoin as your everyday currency.

That is what I understand from what I have read on this topic. The reduced block time makes it more susceptible to attacks due to a reduced difficulty and that the safe transaction time is still the same. I'm not sure about the exact details of this and I am not an expert on this, you should do your own research.

The internet in itself is decentralized. The backbone of the internet is not located in one country, but multiple countries. And pulling the plug on the internet a) doesn't work and b) would be absolutely catastrophic to other stuff that the governments do care about. The internet cannot be shutdown, and with anonymizers like Tor, censorship and blocking can be easily circumvented.

Furthermore, we can also develop a bitcoin network through radio and not rely on current internet infrastructure. Instead we could create a global peer-to-peer radio network solely for bitcoin. There are people who are trying to create such a network

Yes, but it gets cheaper with faster block time since it will cost less to get the equipment with the necessary hash power.

What's that got to do with anything?

Not necessarily. It isn't about the number of confirmations. With faster blocks the diff is lower so if takes less hash power to find the same amount of blocks. What good does a confirmation do it the block the transaction was confirmed in is orphaned and the longer chain didn't contain that transaction? With lower diffs for a faster time, this scenario becomes more feasible.

It is easy to implement from the beginning like with an altcoin because it was there from the beginning and did not require a hard fork. How many altcoin forked their blockchain to get the faster block times? Forking is different and harder to do than having the block time originally since it requires a certain activation threshold and other conditions before the variables can change. It also requires more steps as the difficulty retarget algorithm needs to be changed and the difficulty needs to be dropped when the fork activates. That is more stuff to do than changing one variable when the fork activates for a block size limit increase.

Miners typically are very important with forking, as they are the only ones who can really fork the blockchain. However, with some software, only some miners are required and a lot of users as then the developers can insert checkpoints to force a specific blockchain be used. This scenario is bad since then the fork happens without consensus.

It means that it is possible, and that code exists in order to do so. It doesn't mean that it will happen, it just means that it can happen.

Luke-jr did the trolling on github. The person who was commenting on reddit was nullc which is Greg Maxwell, not Luke-Jr.

There is no decision or plan about making a PoW algo change. He is simply saying that it is possible to change the algo and that code to do so exists (e.g. altcoins and luke-jr). Luke-Jr made a pull request to Bitcoin Classic saying that they should change the algo. I'm fairly certain that he was trolling with that request and was not actually being serious about it.

Either way it doesn't matter since the coins you have now would be spendable on any possible chain. The private keys are not linked to specific chains or anything like that.

Knowing the people who may hard fork without consensus, the fork would probably be announced with some warning, people would probably only be talking about the impending fork, and after the fact, they would probably also gloat over their "victory". For web wallets, they will go with whatever fork they want. Most will probably announce ahead of time though.

You guys should search for these topics before asking the same questions that have been asked for many years. Just do a google search.

Some reasons against it:
It decreases the security of the network proportional to how much the time was decreased. E.g. decreasing the block time by half also decreases the security by half because then it would only cost an attacker half as much in order to pull off an attack like a finney attack.

The reduced time does not affect how long (time wise) it would take for a transaction to be considered safe. If blocks can be solved with less hash power, then the orphan rate increases and thus lower confirmation numbers become less safe. It would still take 10-20 minutes for a transaction to be considered safe, just that instead of having 1 or 2 confirmations, it becomes having a lot more confirmations

There is also an increased overhead on SPV wallets (but not really that much) as they would need to store more block headers and thus more data.

And lastly, I think it may actually be a little harder to implement this than it would be to implement a higher block size limit, although to determine that would require some code digging which I don't want to do.

Lie detector tests are easily cheated. They can usually result in false positives and false negatives. Even though lie detectors still are considered evidence in court, they don't work very well and have failed for many criminals who were still convicted based on other evidence.

How would that even work? The idea simply doesn't make any sense.

Maybe a bunch of Tesla Powerwalls could get you through the night if you reduced power consumption at night and ramped it up during the day.

Still, this idea is not feasible.

Not true. There is nothing (short of a sybil attack) that can track the IP address that a transaction originated from. Transactions do not contain the IP address of the sender, it is not necessary information. Block explorers like blockchain.info only report the IP address of the node that first relayed the transaction to them, not the IP address from which the transaction originated.

bitmixer is a coin mixing service. They make it very difficult for someone to trace your coins so it provides anonymity. VPNs and Tor won't help since IP addresses do not have a part in the Bitcoin network.

I read most of it. Probably should have said most of them are illegal and sketchy. But online gambling can be illegal, porn is kinda sketchy, and so is surveillance equipment depending on the equipment being sold. Firearm sales are kinda illegal, depends on the firewarms, and money transfer networks seem pretty sketchy. Coin dealers could be scams and have some sketchiness in them and dating services don't particularly seem safe to me as your date could be dangerous, so kinda sketchy.

I think we should completely scrap the current one and replace it with something like the IETF to develop standards for Bitcoin.

Don't forget that there is also no infrastructure out there to easily get equipment out there to build a mining farm. Then people need to live out there to maintain the miners and they need food and water. Also the solar panels would need maintenance as dust and sand would cover up those panels over time and that would reduce their efficiency.

No, that is just a bunch of illegal and sketchy stuff. Bitcoin can be used for everything else that isn't banned and is legit. Bitcoin can be used for everything that fiat can be used for as well. Just so you know, that list doesn't apply just to Bitcoin, it applies to fiat as well. 

If enough people play and he is able to buy 292,201,338 tickets and each one has a different combination of numbers, then he would have bought every single possible ticket which guarantees that the jackpot will be won by him. Of course this also requires that enough people buy in so that $584,402,676 has been spent. With the current prize, everyone would still be making a profit.

There absolutely is NOT a third way. Hard forks and soft forks encompass all upgrade possibilities, which happen to be a) upgrade is incompatible with previous clients (hard fork) or b) fork is backwards compatible with previous clients. Whichever way you decide to upgrade the network, the upgrade will fall into one of those two categories.

The idea you propose is a soft fork as it is still compatible with previous clients.

BTW, I think your explanation is a horrible and very very poor explanation of what ZoomT was actually trying to do. It has nothing to do with "mushroom blocks" and including transactions in the smaller blocks. In fact, the generalized soft fork idea proposed by him has no indication that any transactions except the coinbase would actually be stored in the small blocks. It essentially attacks those still running old software as they are unable to actually see new transactions and spend from them.