Bitcoin Network Capacity is Reaching a Critical State: Mike Hearn

[tvbcof]

This bullshit is the equivalent of whooping and making loud noises to try to get a bunch of cattle to run through an open gate which is pretty much the universal way that leadership acts.  It is the equivalent of the 40 years of assertions that we are near or passed the 'tipping point' where some sort of climate catastrophe is inevitable (it was the coming ice-age back when I was a kid.)  This kind of crap can be ignored and ridiculed.

It is probably true that there will be some strain on Bitcoin as a free-to-use system where operator revenue is achieved by spying on users and exploiting them in various other ways.  To bad, so sad.  As far as I'm concerned this would be a healthy evolution (finally!) and about as far from some sort of a calamity as one can get.

I'll bet a dime to a doughnut that by investment magnitude a majority of hodlers were fully aware that Bitcoin would and could never be something which scales to replace all exchange currencies, or even a simple centralized system like VISA, and trying to make it so would destroy it.  In my case I considered the risk that this would even be attempted to be a limiting factor on how much I wanted to risk on the system.  I'll welcome the day when I am compelled to pay what the solution is worth for the capabilities it provides.  As it is I set my client to pay about $10.00 per transaction just because it is a fantastic deal and in my opinion the right thing to do.

From me to Hearndresen:  Go to hell.  I'm still betting that sidechains and/or similar actually workable scaling methods will win the footrace between you guys who want to make Bitcoin an inferior substitute to PayPal and those we who want it to be a net positive for humankind.

[luckyluigi]

summary: we are doomed. end.

Quick! Everyone sell your coins! 

[jbrnt]

Increasing the 1M limit does not mean every block has to be 1M or larger. Miner can continue to mine 500k blocks. What are the arguments against it?

[coinft]

The free market provides a solution. When the block size fills up, people will pay higher transaction fees to get their transactions through. Free riders paying zero or low transaction fees won't get their transactions processed.

The block size can only be increased if the big miners agree, and it's not in their interest to increase it.

What happens if you dont pay the required fee an your transaction is never processed? you lose the money?

You double spend your own transaction with a higher fee, or you pay a miner directly to include it.

[sidhujag]

In my view, we need to find a new Satoshi to lead us out of the darkness. These tiny patches are miniscule when compared to the real challenges facing bitcoin.

Let's face it, go ahead and admit it, bitcoin is centralized. Now let's find, and crown, a really awesome king to light the way.

No, just NO

[tvbcof]

Increasing the 1M limit does not mean every block has to be 1M or larger. Miner can continue to mine 500k blocks. What are the arguments against it?

Fine.  Then there is no need to raise the block limit at all.  'Problem' solved.  What's all the bitching about?

[ArticMine]

The free market provides a solution. When the block size fills up, people will pay higher transaction fees to get their transactions through. Free riders paying zero or low transaction fees won't get their transactions processed.

The block size can only be increased if the big miners agree, and it's not in their interest to increase it.

That may work for a while but not for ever. The situation becomes a fixed supply with an ever increasing demand so transaction fees will skyrocket. The free market will of course find a solution to this; namely use a non Bitcoin blockchain without this artificial limitation.

Edit: There are alternatives to Bitcoin right now that do not have this blocksize limitation baked in.

[Nagle]

The free market provides a solution. When the block size fills up, people will pay higher transaction fees to get their transactions through. Free riders paying zero or low transaction fees won't get their transactions processed.

The block size can only be increased if the big miners agree, and it's not in their interest to increase it.

What happens if you dont pay the required fee an your transaction is never processed? you lose the money?

You double spend your own transaction with a higher fee, or you pay a miner directly to include it.

That can be automated.  Clients should observe the recent blockchain to see what the going rate is for confirmed transactions. They then adjust their transaction fee accordingly. If a transaction isn't getting confirmed, double-spend to cancel it, then resubmit with a higher transaction fee. Transaction fees then go up and down automatically. This requires no changes to the blockchain, and any client can implement it without affecting other clients.

[oblivi]

MicroGuy is hilarious, I always read his posts in his voice after seeing him promoting that Goldcoin thing on youtube.
Sorry but no, Bitcoin is not centralized, and Bitcoin is and will be the king of crypto.

[Amph]

In my view, we need to find a new Satoshi to lead us out of the darkness. These tiny patches are miniscule when compared to the real challenges facing bitcoin.

Let's face it, go ahead and admit it, bitcoin is centralized. Now let's find, and crown, a really awesome king to light the way.

No, just NO

the funny part is that he is promoting a more centralized coin, than bitcoin, i smelling just hating from his words

Gavin isn't a ceo or anything he just helping bitcoin, also even mining is far away from being centralized