How come we are still discussing Gavincoin when he's the only one supporting it?

[hdbuck]

20MB doesn't scale! Not really.
On the other hand offchain transaction DO scale as much as you want. Just sayin'

At this point the 20MB blocks are out of the discussion since Gavin had a calculation error. We are talking about 8MB blocks which can scale!

Why are you pushing so much the offchain transaction? Seeking centralization power?

So much for not listening to yall USGavincheerleaders.

Funny to see you backpedaling yet still squeaking in favor of 2 USG muppets (gavin being some random MIT Media Lab employee and Hearn is Google material).




You're dumb and im glad you will never have any influence over bitcoin's development.

[1715673071]

1715673071

[1715673071]

1715673071

[1715673071]

1715673071

[spud21]

This new development might have some implications on the debate. I don't know how reliable cointelegraph's information is but the Chinese exchanges hold a large share of the market.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

BTCChina and Huobi agree that a solution should be sought after, which would probably include some increase of the block size limit. Wang and Mo both believe a compromise should be possible, while more durable solutions for the block size issue will be required eventually.

“We believe in a gradual increase of the block size limit along with a hard upper limit to prevent misuse,“ Wang told CoinTelegraph.” The success of Bitcoin relies heavily on the stability and robustness of the network. As many have already suggested, a compromise with a smaller block size of four megabytes sounds quite reasonable.”

This sentiment was echoed by Mo:

“The proposed increase of the maximum block size cannot fundamentally solve the issue; 20 megabyte blocks can also become a bottleneck in the future. A neutral and balanced solution is needed, such as an increase of the maximum block size to an intermediate value that guarantees a fluent and smooth transaction over the next year. And it might also be needed to consider the issue from an economical perspective.”

[Pecunia non olet]

This new development might have some implications on the debate. I don't know how reliable cointelegraph's information is but the Chinese exchanges hold a large share of the market.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

BTCChina and Huobi agree that a solution should be sought after, which would probably include some increase of the block size limit. Wang and Mo both believe a compromise should be possible, while more durable solutions for the block size issue will be required eventually.

“We believe in a gradual increase of the block size limit along with a hard upper limit to prevent misuse,“ Wang told CoinTelegraph.” The success of Bitcoin relies heavily on the stability and robustness of the network. As many have already suggested, a compromise with a smaller block size of four megabytes sounds quite reasonable.”

This sentiment was echoed by Mo:

“The proposed increase of the maximum block size cannot fundamentally solve the issue; 20 megabyte blocks can also become a bottleneck in the future. A neutral and balanced solution is needed, such as an increase of the maximum block size to an intermediate value that guarantees a fluent and smooth transaction over the next year. And it might also be needed to consider the issue from an economical perspective.”

I think we've gotten lucky. I love these asian guys.