Reddit Mod(s) banned/deleeted hundreds of XT posts...

[LiteCoinGuy]

aggressive increases? the original client supported 32 MB blocks in 2010.

5 years later only 8MB should be no problem. alot of analysis has been done. storage and bandwidth are not the problem.

[RoadTrain]

aggressive increases? the original client supported 32 MB blocks in 2010.

Yes, 1Mb -> 8Mb and then doubling every 2 years is aggressive and beyond the pace of technological advances. What the original client supported doesn't matter, it's not a bible.

5 years later only 8MB should be no problem. alot of analysis has been done. storage and bandwidth are not the problem.

I'd kindly ask you to point me towards a lot of analysis. Thanks.

[LiteCoinGuy]

aggressive increases? the original client supported 32 MB blocks in 2010.

Yes, 1Mb -> 8Mb and then doubling every 2 years is aggressive and beyond the pace of technological advances. What the original client supported doesn't matter, it's not a bible.

5 years later only 8MB should be no problem. alot of analysis has been done. storage and bandwidth are not the problem.

I'd kindly ask you to point me towards a lot of analysis. Thanks.

no, that is not true.

please take a look at:


-bandwidth-


Extracting the figures gives:

#Average download speed in November 2008 was 3.6Mbit
#Average download speed in November 2014 was 22.8Mbit

#Average upload speed in November 2008 to April 2009 was 0.43Mbit/s
#Average upload speed in November 2014 was 2.9Mbit


http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=551


(storage is no problem, you can buy terrabytes of data today for 80 USD but you want facts

[favdesu]

Funny consensus - if you dont like what the majority wants, deleet it  

sorry, but where is the proof on the major consent? as far as I see it, BitcoinXT is just another altcoin at this point and I honestly doubt it'll see consent anytime soon.

[RoadTrain]

no, that is not true.

please take a look at:

-bandwidth-

Extracting the figures gives:

#Average download speed in November 2008 was 3.6Mbit
#Average download speed in November 2014 was 22.8Mbit

#Average upload speed in November 2008 to April 2009 was 0.43Mbit/s
#Average upload speed in November 2014 was 2.9Mbit

Rusty Russel concludes:

Thus I revise my bandwidth estimates; instead of 17% per annum this suggests 30% per annum as a reasonable growth rate.

30% per annum, good. What's the annual rate of increase in Gavin's exponential function? Well, it's 41.4% per annum, which is clearly beyond the pace of technological advances in bandwidth. Not to mention that the past experience doesn't guarantee the future progress.

[BrianM]

The problem here is the information. Bitcoin XT was launched and published as being the "official" bitcoin. And backed by statements like "fork proposal made by leading bitcoin devs". I don't have refferences and shit, this is just my impressions of the situtations when exposed to the initial information. Then later by other sourses did I learned about the truth, that Bitcoin XT is a rouge dev team that went their own ways. I cannot spend all day looking at discussions and arguments. I am a end user, I need to know "peasent do this!".

[Meuh6879]

Funny consensus - if you dont like what the majority wants, deleet it  

Forum is not a democraty.
Users can not force moderator team ... 

[Lauda]

Actually OP I considered you as a better member in the past (better than most campaign participants and most people one interacts on a daily basis; this is not ad hominem!). I wonder what has rallied your support for XT so much. Mike Hearn is not a good person nor are his intentions pure.

You've actually been spreading some misinformation in regards to this debate as well. XT is not the only way for bigger blocks. BIP 100 and BIP 102 are the proposed changes to Core that will allow bigger blocks. It's obvious that most of the members advocating XT either are misinformed or ignorant. This is wearing people out, including me. I have to repeat the same stuff hundreds of times (including a few others) and yet people continue being blind.

[iCEBREAKER]

Rusty Russel concludes:

Thus I revise my bandwidth estimates; instead of 17% per annum this suggests 30% per annum as a reasonable growth rate.

30% per annum, good. What's the annual rate of increase in Gavin's exponential function? Well, it's 41.4% per annum, which is clearly beyond the pace of technological advances in bandwidth. Not to mention that the past experience doesn't guarantee the future progress.

Gavincoin's rate of growth flagrantly disregards planning for the worst, in preference of hoping for the best.

That is a technical affront to and social engineering attack on Bitcoin's diversity, defensibility, diffuseness, and resilience.

Whether intentional or not, it is based on Hearn's Big Lie:

Bitcoin has been suffering because the failure to remove an anti-spam fix has become a point of contention.

Let's fix Hearn's Big Lie so it accurately reflects the reality of this summer of drama:

Bitcoin has been thriving because the failure to remove an anti-spam fix has become a point of contention.

There.  Much better.   

[LiteCoinGuy]

Funny consensus - if you dont like what the majority wants, deleet it  

Forum is not a democraty.
Users can not force moderator team ... 

True, it is more a dictatorship. exactly what bitcoin should not be hm?