Actually it was Mike Hearn that started the discussion that we could not have more than one version of Bitcoin (I was actually on the opposing side) so you should probably do more research before making stupid posts.

If you look at "libconsensus" then you can see that the Bitcoin Core devs have been trying to make it possible for other implementations (strange for a group that you think is trying to prevent that).

No worries - let this become an IOTA fan topic then - I'll just unwatch and get on with other things.

Which won't happen if one group (such as Bitcoin Classic) decides that the other group (Bitcoin Core) are not the right people to be doing the job (which is exactly what is going on).

Gavin could fix all of this by simply making a statement that he won't disagree with the Bitcoin Core group (but of course he won't ever make such a statement so we have a stalemate).

That is the community that doesn't *mine* (just propagates txs and perhaps verifies txs that they receive).

You can't have multiple implementations that mine or the blockchain will fork (e.g. no-one has created a block with BitcoinJ that is in the current blockchain).

Even Mike Hearn would agree with this (as I was chastised by him for criticising the fact that there wasn't a Bitcoin RFC back in 2012).

I think that your lack of understanding is what leads you to not realise why your proposals are unfeasible.

I don't think that you "get it" - if we have multiple versions of Bitcoin then what are the exchanges supposed to do (they can only accept one if they don't want to lose money)?

So your idea is to decentralise something that basically cannot be (have you really thought this idea through?).

Forking is not the same as creating alts - so if Gavin and others want to create an alt then why don't they just do that?

I am not opposed to raising the block limit per se but what I am opposed to is the dumping of the Bitcoin Core development team in favour of another team when I don't see that the Bitcoin Core team deserve to be dumped (they have only done good things so far IMO).

The agenda of both XT and now Classic is to take control away from the current Bitcoin Core developers (I don't there is any doubt about that) and that is what I have a problem with.

If someone can convince me (without resorting to silly conspiracy theories or ridiculous needs for everyone to buy coffees with BTC) that the Bitcoin Core team is inferior to some new team then I would happily change my opinion (but so far I've seen nothing to persuade me that we are seeing anything more than politics hence why I created this topic).

I actually did LOL watching it - well done!

So let's get back on topic on not talk about IOTA but instead the fact that a "small POW" doesn't work!

The reason being that it is easily defeated by a large set of dedicated servers (read @monsterer's topic for more on this).

I thought the point of this topic was to discuss potential technical solutions rather than actual "coins" (which basically comes across as shilling whether you mean it to or not).

Why not just talk about the technical methods and not even mention the coin's name then?

(and as @monsterer points out a small POW won't work so that idea is a failure but because you introduced a "name" we will now waste time with having to read rubbish posts defending an alt rather than with anything useful)

If your purpose is to shill for IOTA then I guess we have nothing more to discuss (it's unfortunate that it is simply impossible to create a topic on this forum about tech without shills for some alt coming along and trying to hijack it - maybe the OP should consider a self-moderated topic next time).

Provided that the "proof" is not going to be a big hassle then that makes sense, however, having a very "cheap proof" will make it much easier to mount a Sybil attack.

The way I am approaching this problem is seemingly quite different to the other ways I've been reading in this topic (but as I haven't finished development yet I won't say more about it for now).

I think you are very incorrect with this thinking - currently people spend "hours every day" creating content on Facebook or other such things for *zero profit*. Why on earth would they do that?

If you can simply get those people to run a (presumably low-power requirement) node then you will be able to secure a blockchain without needing block rewards at all (effectively it is your cost to be a part of a social network).

Please don't "talk down to people" with such stupid things as "gentle reminders" (it just makes you look bad really).

If you want to be taken seriously then such condescending comments don't help.

For the record: I actually have never stated that I think the block size should remain "1MB for life" so in fact you are just putting words into my mouth (mostly I have just questioned the "sense of urgency" for bigger blocks that is being used by Gavin and others vying for control of the project).

(Gentle reminder: Don't make up crap about what other people have said or supposedly support in order to suit your own arguments.)

Unfortunately your idea of "voting" becomes the Sybil problem (the very thing that Bitcoin was created to solve).

So how do you propose to make sure that the vote is fair?

(of course we already have that mechanism in place - don't we?)

Your very simplistic idea would really be the equivalent of me putting a "poll" on this topic to vote who should control the Bitcoin development.

I have done quite a bit of work with CLTV recently: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=598860.msg13435766#msg13435766

Feel free to PM me to discuss your ideas.

Basically then you are advocating that we should have many blockchains not one.

I fail to see this as anything different to supporting the various alts that we have already - so why don't the miners just do that?

Personally I think this would be fine and it would solve the tx/sec issue if we simply divided everything into a thousand different chains.

Maybe all we need is a universal wallet and we've nailed it. 

I don't think he is a power-hungry maniac - but I do think that he thinks he (or his group) should be "calling the shots". If not then why support XT and now Classic which both have stated that they don't agree with the way that the Bitcoin project is being managed?

Why not just go back to working with the Bitcoin Core devs (which he possibly could still do as he didn't "burn his bridges" like Hearn did)?

This is pretty much exactly the point that I have been trying to make (thanks for elucidating it better than I did).

To me it is clear that this "pressure" to "fix block size now" is being applied simply in order to take control over the project and is not going to be of any benefit to anyone other than some large corporations who are wanting to profit by taking control of Bitcoin.

Although this is getting off topic (and please PM me if you wish to discuss it further) if you are brave enough and wanted to try traveling around China on your own without a guide then for BTC I could provide a service to help you with things like hotel bookings, taxi pickups, etc.

(in particular this could include the ability to have someone to call here in order to help with translation for any difficult situation)

It of course depends upon what sort of level of comfort you want to experience but assuming you are okay with Chinese food and say 3 star hotels (which are a little crappy in China compared to 3 star hotels in say Australia but are still okay if you're not overly fussy) then I'd allow for at least 400-500 RMB per day to cover food, accommodation and fees for tickets/transport/etc.

You would be best advised to get a Chinese guide that has English skills as there are few Chinese that speak fluent English that you will meet outside of major airports or major tourist sites (which might push the cost closer to 600 RMB per day).

BTW - you can use Uber in most large cities in China which can make transport fairly simple even if you can't speak any Chinese.