Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

[brg444]

Consumers and merchants are never going to be the economic majority in Bitcoin

Not by themselves, perhaps, but throw a few others into the mix and the picture starts to look a little different.


Larger (than 1MB) blocks will naturally provide benefit to:

Anyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a payments network
VC investors
Miners
Merchants
Payment processors
Average users in general

Smaller blocks will naturally provide benefit to:

Those who want to use Bitcoin as an asset class (i.e. not the average user)
Those wanting to run full nodes cheaply (i.e. not the average user)
Those who don't care if the average user is priced off the main chain (i.e. definitely not the average user)

Pretty sure that first group will agree on a proposal before too long.  We'll see if you're right about them not being an economic majority.  

The "picture" might look different because your fabricate it to fit your twisted view of how you believe it should work.

Here's how the decision process unfolds in reality.

Tier 1
Network peers (nodes)
Bitcoin holders

Tier 2
Miners

Tier 3
Exchanges

Tier 4
Everyone else (merchants, payment processors, consumers, redditards, Fidelity & other banking parasites)

TLDR; if you don't have the support of the network peers and the "bitcoin rich list" your fork goes the way of XT which goes the way of Stannis at Winterfell -> #REKT

Okay Mr. "everyone else is beneath me".  Whatever you say.  

Why is it that anyone who absorbs MP rhetoric also inherits his colossal egotism?

Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes to support a chain they can't afford to transact on, it's still a stupid plan.  No one is going to support a network that doesn't support them.  Either it benefits everyone, or everyone goes elsewhere and you can hodl your defunct novelty toy when the miners go elsewhere with them.

It's not. You just severely lack imagination and understanding of economics. Bitcoin is the fuel for a whole ecosystem, it will not be limited to its blockchain.

If your plan is for everyone to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain then we might as well just scrap the whole thing and keep our fiat.

[1714849862]

1714849862

[1714849862]

1714849862

[coalitionfor8mb]

Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.

The plan is to keep it permissionless.
At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections.
What's your plan?

Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it.

If it's not useful, then don't use it.
The free market will resolve this issue quickly.

[brg444]

There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere.

Huh?

If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes?

"MASS ADOPTION" fantasies.

A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it.

That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can  

On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you.

[knight22]

There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere.

Huh?

If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes?

"MASS ADOPTION" fantasies.

A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it.

That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can  

On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you.

Again, if its not bitcoin it will be something else. That something else will a success while bitcoin will go down the path of irrelevence.

[brg444]

There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere.

Huh?

If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes?

"MASS ADOPTION" fantasies.

A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it.

That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can  

On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you.

Again, if its not bitcoin it will be something else. That something else will a success while bitcoin will go down the path of irrelevence.

It is Bitcoin and will be Bitcoin. For everything else use fiat 

[coalitionfor8mb]

There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere.

Huh?

If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes?

"MASS ADOPTION" fantasies.

A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it.

That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can  

On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you.

Again, if its not bitcoin it will be something else. That something else will a success while bitcoin will go down the path of irrelevence.

Bitcoin is the biggest network of its kind that allows you to have full access to the blockchain from an average household PC and internet connection.
That's the whole purpose it was created in the first place.

[coalitionfor8mb]

Any other questions?

...

Good!

[DooMAD]

Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.

The plan is to keep it permissionless.
At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections.
What's your plan?

To not make it twice as bad by maxing out the blocksize too.

"We've hit one wall already, so we should definitely aim for this second one and speed up.  That's bound to make everything better".   

[knight22]

There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere.

Huh?

If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes?

"MASS ADOPTION" fantasies.

A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it.

That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can  

On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you.

Again, if its not bitcoin it will be something else. That something else will a success while bitcoin will go down the path of irrelevence.

It is Bitcoin and will be Bitcoin. For everything else use fiat 

This reply is totally meaningless.

[knight22]

There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere.

Huh?

If no-one is using Bitcoin to pay for things then how on earth are these business benefiting from larger block sizes?

"MASS ADOPTION" fantasies.

A lot of people here want mass adoption because they are selfish and they want to make some quick money, they don't really care about Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is useless if nobody can use it.

That'd be true if nobody could use it. Yet everyone can  

On the other hand it is not useless because it cannot settle your frappucino transaction on its blockchain, that's just pure ignorance but of course we are well used to that coming from you.

Again, if its not bitcoin it will be something else. That something else will a success while bitcoin will go down the path of irrelevence.

Bitcoin is the biggest network of its kind for now that allows you to have full access to the blockchain from an average household PC and internet connection.
That's the whole purpose it was created in the first place.

FTFY

Having access to the blockchain =! Running a node.

[jonald_fyookball]

I think it is time for this thread to die.

Not one poster here (on either side of the debate) was convinced of an opposing opinion, which is hardly surprising.

See you on the next topic.

[coalitionfor8mb]

Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.

The plan is to keep it permissionless.
At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections.
What's your plan?

To not make it twice as bad by maxing out the blocksize too.

"We've hit one wall already, so we should definitely aim for this second one and speed up.  That's bound to make everything better".  

We maxed out both the current 1MB block size limit and the average home internet connections at the same time.
There is nowhere to go at the moment if you are willing to preserve the fundamental properties of the network.

Bitcoin is the biggest network of its kind for now that allows you to have full access to the blockchain from an average household PC and internet connection.
That's the whole purpose it was created in the first place.

FTFY

Having access to the blockchain =! Running a node.

The key word is "permissionless" access.
The home networks are ubiquitous and are even raised to the status of the "basic human rights" in some countries.

I think it is time for this thread to die.

Not one poster here (on either side of the debate) was convinced of an opposing opinion, which is hardly surprising.

See you on the next topic.

Pretty much.
I'm glad that rushing for the (e)X(i)T has finally stopped.
Let's see what other surprises Bitcoin has prepared for us.

[muyuu]

I think it is time for this thread to die.

Like XT?    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk&feature=youtu.be&t=8m48s

When Trace Mayer decides to abandon neutrality and tears Gavin a new one like that, I think it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

[brg444]

I think it is time for this thread to die.

Not one poster here (on either side of the debate) was convinced of an opposing opinion, which is hardly surprising.

See you on the next topic.

It was never about convincing anyone but proclaiming Core victory over XT 

[VeritasSapere]

I think it is time for this thread to die.

Not one poster here (on either side of the debate) was convinced of an opposing opinion, which is hardly surprising.

See you on the next topic.

It was never about convincing anyone but proclaiming Core victory over XT  

People can read this for themselves and decide who has the most convincing arguments, there are obviously people here disagreeing with you. Whether XT will increase the blocksize or another implementation will does not matter. It has been a catalyst for change, which has lead to people questioning and coming to understand how consensus should and does work. It has been successful at this regardless of what we think.

[brg444]

^ can anyone tell this guy I have him on ignore just in case he's speaking to me ? 

[brg444]

Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.

The plan is to keep it permissionless.
At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections.
What's your plan?

To not make it twice as bad by maxing out the blocksize too.

"We've hit one wall already, so we should definitely aim for this second one and speed up.  That's bound to make everything better".  

We maxed out both the current 1MB block size limit and the average home internet connections at the same time.

I have to disagree with this. We are nowhere near maxing out the limit.

[mallard]

Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.

The plan is to keep it permissionless.
At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections.
What's your plan?

To not make it twice as bad by maxing out the blocksize too.

"We've hit one wall already, so we should definitely aim for this second one and speed up.  That's bound to make everything better".  

We maxed out both the current 1MB block size limit and the average home internet connections at the same time.

I have to disagree with this. We are nowhere near maxing out the limit.

While the blocks aren't being filled to 1MB (https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size) there are still usually a lot of unconfirmed transactions.

[brg444]

Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.

The plan is to keep it permissionless.
At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections.
What's your plan?

To not make it twice as bad by maxing out the blocksize too.

"We've hit one wall already, so we should definitely aim for this second one and speed up.  That's bound to make everything better".  

We maxed out both the current 1MB block size limit and the average home internet connections at the same time.

I have to disagree with this. We are nowhere near maxing out the limit.

While the blocks aren't being filled to 1MB (https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size) there are still usually a lot of unconfirmed transactions.

Not a concern. They'd get confirmed right away with a proper fee.

[coalitionfor8mb]

Also, if your plan is still to make it as cheap as possible for people to run nodes.

The plan is to keep it permissionless.
At the current level it we have already maxed out average home connections.
What's your plan?

To not make it twice as bad by maxing out the blocksize too.

"We've hit one wall already, so we should definitely aim for this second one and speed up.  That's bound to make everything better".  

We maxed out both the current 1MB block size limit and the average home internet connections at the same time.

I have to disagree with this. We are nowhere near maxing out the limit.

You caught me there! There is still room to grow, it seems...
I'm glad that the level of "precision thinking" is rising on this forum.