This is not what I would agree with.

If I have 1 BTC then why do I need a bigger block size?

In time if my 1 BTC is going to buy me a house then the tx for buying that house will actually be tiny (it certainly won't require a bigger block size).

They have mostly just developed too many apartment complexes (sometimes in places where no-one lives).

Part of the problem might be price but another big part of the problem is most likely corruption (so they don't want to sell without getting a big profit).

So you end up with places that have big apartment buildings that are empty as the developers want the profits but the complex has been built in a place where no-one wants to live (known as "ghost towns").

If my intention was to FUD the price lower then 250 would not be nearly low enough.

I guess we are yet to see what will occur - but currently my concern is that the "Classic" group are trying to replace the "Core" group.

If a "merger" were to happen then maybe that would be the best outcome.

It has never been useful for buying coffee - so how can I be destroying its value for something that it has never been able to do well?

(it has been very useful to move money from one country to another with almost zero fees - so that has been something that I have not been able to destroy)

My party?
(it is my topic)

I don't get it. Perhaps you could just try and make a real point rather than some further jibe against me (not sure why you have something against me but I guess that's just how it goes).

If you don't like "my party" then you are welcome to go to another (am sure there are many others on this forum).

No so much - if you don't mine then you don't really decide much at all (and you can always more directly connect to a mining pool if you need to).

Those that are trying to make this out to be a "do or die now issue" are those that are trying to "take over the project".

Those that actually own Bitcoin don't really care about being able to buy coffee with it - they care about not losing the value of their investment (so they don't need to see the block size increase *next month*).

If it was decided by the users then you would not have miners - so oops - you have made a mistake (so maybe you should be using an alt?).

@Peter R

You are always handy with pretty pictures - but pictures (and especially graphs) are what politicians use to trick people so please don't waste your time on creating pretty pictures for me.

Instead spend your time typing some text that actually means something.

(i.e. welcome to join in the debate but stop posting pictures and start typing text as I don't speak in pictures)

(if you are only good at communicating with pictures then maybe we need a translator to work between the two of us)

The core devs do not all work for Blockstream - perhaps you'd like to actually say the % of them that do?

If Bitcoin Classic wins then Gavin is going to be the "benevolent dictator" (which I think has always been his desire).

Do you want him as the overlord?

I guess that is the question (personally I am happier with the Bitcoin Core team as it stands).

It isn't the code that is the issue - it is the hostile takeover that is.

Clearly Mike was not as good at politics as Gavin so he tried to stuff in other changes (especially after XT was DDoS attacked).

Gavin has cleverly now gone with something that only changes the one thing (but more importantly puts him back in charge - after they take over who knows what will happen).

I remember clearly the whole BIP 16 vs BIP 17 thing where Gavin attacked Luke-Jr with this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0

This was the point that I lost respect for Gavin - attacking someone the way he did then just proved that he was not at all like Satoshi (show me any post where Satoshi behaved like that).

I see - you just like to call people things (I believe there are names for people like you but I'll refrain from saying them).

How about you try and just stay on topic and stop with the snide remarks (or is that too much to ask)?

Extortion attempt?

Huh?

(exactly what I am trying to extort?)

So - big block fans - where are the signatures of the clearly tens (or hundreds) of thousands of frustrated wannabe Bitcoin users that are only not using it because of the block size?

Of course there are none - the only people complaining about it are the payment processors hoping to get rich and those that are wanting to take control of the project.

It is good that Mike Hearn has left - but we still need Gavin to leave as well IMO (as he is not giving up trying to take over the project as is obvious from his quick change from XT to Classic).

Again we have another "we must increase the block size ASAP" fork crap - under the most stupid name "Bitcoin Classic".

It's a "classic" alright - a "classic attempt to FUD people into letting a small bunch of wannabe Bitcoin overlords take over the project".

The blocks are not even nearly full most of the time (apart from attacks which are just spam being used to fill up the mempool for FUD reasons).

The reason that people don't use Bitcoin for normal txs is "why the hell would they?".

Even if a vendor were to offer a cheaper price for paying in BTC you still have to change your fiat into BTC to purchase from them (and then most likely BitPay or another provider is going to take at least 1% commission).

If you don't purchase your BTC via an exchange (and no average person is going to do that to just buy something) then most likely you are going to pay at least 5% commission - so if you are ending up with 6% commission - did you save anything from using a credit card?

Also you can't get a refund if you pay with BTC - so the masses are not screaming to pay with BTC at all (far from it - if it cannot be reversed then I suspect 99% of people would not want to use it as certainly every person I have spoken to does not like the idea).

Can we stop with the FUD and let the project just continue to improve the tech?

The "crossing the road analogy" is rubbish as I have lived in China for more than 9 years and I always make eye contact with the driver and walk right in front of them (they always stop as the law here puts the driver immediately at fault). Perhaps the author didn't know the "you can always turn right unless there is a red arrow" traffic rule (which can be very annoying as a pedestrian but if you just walk in front of the cars they will stop - and most especially if you are a white foreigner).

On the other hand I certainly would not invest anything in the Chinese stock market and even their property market is not what you'd think of as very secure (the number of empty apartment complexes in China is mind boggling and it is not easy to actually get property titles to anything new that you might buy).

It would not be a good idea to have the exchange software actually *know* your secret (it should only know the hash) just in case you decide not to reveal your secret (the idea of the ACCT protocol allows for this so you wouldn't want to potentially take that power away from the initiator).