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

[VeritasSapere]

You don't say anything new; in fact, you're reiterating your claims as if I never challenged them.
I'll try again, the last time: there are network topology issues which result in an uneven block propagation. Uneven propagation alters the orphan race outcomes for different players (mostly pools), making some of them more profitable. The larger blocks get, the larger is the financial difference. This is what alters the incentive structure.

This is exactly my point, it effects the pools not the miners. This is a very important distinction, since if miners are not effected it does not increase mining centralization, it could effect pool centralization if increased to much however for pools it is trivial to setup a full node inside of a data center, which is why pools can support much larger blocks without increasing centralization. It is important to point out the distinction between mining centralization and pool centralization, what you are discussing effects pool centralization, therefore increasing the blocksize does not increase mining centralization.

I can't see how this distinction is of much value, as in the end most miners will have to mine at pools, which are being centralized.

Pools are masters, and miners are slaves. Yes, miners can change their masters, but they can't get free. In the end, the pools that give the most (more income due to natural reasons) will attract most miners.

Just imagine an extreme situation with ~8Gb (read: very large) blocks. In this case, apparently the most effective configuration would be 1 single pool, or a couple pools located in the same data-center. And you miners wouldn't be able to do anything with this centralization.

This distinction is critical in understanding the issues of mining and pool centralization.

The point is miners will not allow one pool to grow to large, since this would undermine the basic value proposition of Bitcoin. It is also actually the other way around, the pools serve the miners. Since it is the miners that control the hashing power. I am not advocating eight gigabyte blocks today that would be ridiculous. In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would not cause any mining centralization whatsoever.

If you really think that miners will conspire or will be forced to fundamentally undermine the value proposition of Bitcoin itself then you do not understand the fundamental incentive mechanisms and game theory inherent in its design. Bitcoin is sustained and maintained by the miners who are incentivized not to undermine the value of Bitcoin, this is why pools are not approaching fifty one percent any more and they never will as long as the hashing power remains sufficiently distributed which is not effected by increasing the blocksize.

[RoadTrain]

You don't say anything new; in fact, you're reiterating your claims as if I never challenged them.
I'll try again, the last time: there are network topology issues which result in an uneven block propagation. Uneven propagation alters the orphan race outcomes for different players (mostly pools), making some of them more profitable. The larger blocks get, the larger is the financial difference. This is what alters the incentive structure.

This is exactly my point, it effects the pools not the miners. This is a very important distinction, since if miners are not effected it does not increase mining centralization, it could effect pool centralization if increased to much however for pools it is trivial to setup a full node inside of a data center, which is why pools can support much larger blocks without increasing centralization. It is important to point out the distinction between mining centralization and pool centralization, what you are discussing effects pool centralization, therefore increasing the blocksize does not increase mining centralization.

I can't see how this distinction is of much value, as in the end most miners will have to mine at pools, which are being centralized.

Pools are masters, and miners are slaves. Yes, miners can change their masters, but they can't get free. In the end, the pools that give the most (more income due to natural reasons) will attract most miners.

Just imagine an extreme situation with ~8Gb (read: very large) blocks. In this case, apparently the most effective configuration would be 1 single pool, or a couple pools located in the same data-center. And you miners wouldn't be able to do anything with this centralization.

This distinction is critical in understanding the issues of mining and pool centralization.

The point is miners will not allow one pool to grow to large, since this would undermine the basic value proposition of Bitcoin. It is also actually the other way around, the pools serve the miners. Since it is the miners that control the hashing power. I am not advocating eight gigabyte blocks today that would be ridiculous. In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would not cause any mining centralization whatsoever.

If you really think that miners will conspire or will be forced to fundamentally undermine the value proposition of Bitcoin itself then you do not understand the fundamental incentive mechanisms and game theory inherent in its design. Bitcoin is sustained and maintained by the miners who are incentivized not to undermine the value of Bitcoin, this is why pools are not approaching fifty one percent any more and they never will as long as the hashing power remains sufficiently distributed which is not effected by increasing the blocksize.

I really feel like talking to a brick wall. I specifically chose an extreme scenario to demonstrate you that mining centralization pressures exist (my original claim), no matter miners' readiness to switch pools. If there are only two pools located in the same data-center, what can you do as an individual miner? You can't solo-mine, you can't change that level of centralization by starting a new pool..

What you are confusing here is this: "In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would not cause any mining centralization whatsoever" should at best be worded like that: "In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would be unlikely to cause any mining centralization, because centralization pressures would be negligible". Even in this form it could be debated whether these pressures would be insignificant.

[brg444]

You don't say anything new; in fact, you're reiterating your claims as if I never challenged them.
I'll try again, the last time: there are network topology issues which result in an uneven block propagation. Uneven propagation alters the orphan race outcomes for different players (mostly pools), making some of them more profitable. The larger blocks get, the larger is the financial difference. This is what alters the incentive structure.

This is exactly my point, it effects the pools not the miners. This is a very important distinction, since if miners are not effected it does not increase mining centralization, it could effect pool centralization if increased to much however for pools it is trivial to setup a full node inside of a data center, which is why pools can support much larger blocks without increasing centralization. It is important to point out the distinction between mining centralization and pool centralization, what you are discussing effects pool centralization, therefore increasing the blocksize does not increase mining centralization.

I can't see how this distinction is of much value, as in the end most miners will have to mine at pools, which are being centralized.

Pools are masters, and miners are slaves. Yes, miners can change their masters, but they can't get free. In the end, the pools that give the most (more income due to natural reasons) will attract most miners.

Just imagine an extreme situation with ~8Gb (read: very large) blocks. In this case, apparently the most effective configuration would be 1 single pool, or a couple pools located in the same data-center. And you miners wouldn't be able to do anything with this centralization.

This distinction is critical in understanding the issues of mining and pool centralization.

The point is miners will not allow one pool to grow to large, since this would undermine the basic value proposition of Bitcoin. It is also actually the other way around, the pools serve the miners. Since it is the miners that control the hashing power. I am not advocating eight gigabyte blocks today that would be ridiculous. In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would not cause any mining centralization whatsoever.

If you really think that miners will conspire or will be forced to fundamentally undermine the value proposition of Bitcoin itself then you do not understand the fundamental incentive mechanisms and game theory inherent in its design. Bitcoin is sustained and maintained by the miners who are incentivized not to undermine the value of Bitcoin, this is why pools are not approaching fifty one percent any more and they never will as long as the hashing power remains sufficiently distributed which is not effected by increasing the blocksize.

I really feel like talking to a brick wall. I specifically chose an extreme scenario to demonstrate you that mining centralization pressures exist (my original claim), no matter miners' readiness to switch pools. If there are only two pools located in the same data-center, what can you do as an individual miner?

What you are confusing here is this: "In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would not cause any mining centralization whatsoever" should at best be worded like that: "In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would be unlikely to cause any mining centralization, because centralization pressures would be negligible". Even in this form it could be debated whether these pressures would be insignificant.

You are. I'd propose you give up now. Others have tried but this dude is just too dense for his own good.

[knight22]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

[VeritasSapere]

You don't say anything new; in fact, you're reiterating your claims as if I never challenged them.
I'll try again, the last time: there are network topology issues which result in an uneven block propagation. Uneven propagation alters the orphan race outcomes for different players (mostly pools), making some of them more profitable. The larger blocks get, the larger is the financial difference. This is what alters the incentive structure.

This is exactly my point, it effects the pools not the miners. This is a very important distinction, since if miners are not effected it does not increase mining centralization, it could effect pool centralization if increased to much however for pools it is trivial to setup a full node inside of a data center, which is why pools can support much larger blocks without increasing centralization. It is important to point out the distinction between mining centralization and pool centralization, what you are discussing effects pool centralization, therefore increasing the blocksize does not increase mining centralization.

I can't see how this distinction is of much value, as in the end most miners will have to mine at pools, which are being centralized.

Pools are masters, and miners are slaves. Yes, miners can change their masters, but they can't get free. In the end, the pools that give the most (more income due to natural reasons) will attract most miners.

Just imagine an extreme situation with ~8Gb (read: very large) blocks. In this case, apparently the most effective configuration would be 1 single pool, or a couple pools located in the same data-center. And you miners wouldn't be able to do anything with this centralization.

This distinction is critical in understanding the issues of mining and pool centralization.

The point is miners will not allow one pool to grow to large, since this would undermine the basic value proposition of Bitcoin. It is also actually the other way around, the pools serve the miners. Since it is the miners that control the hashing power. I am not advocating eight gigabyte blocks today that would be ridiculous. In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would not cause any mining centralization whatsoever.

If you really think that miners will conspire or will be forced to fundamentally undermine the value proposition of Bitcoin itself then you do not understand the fundamental incentive mechanisms and game theory inherent in its design. Bitcoin is sustained and maintained by the miners who are incentivized not to undermine the value of Bitcoin, this is why pools are not approaching fifty one percent any more and they never will as long as the hashing power remains sufficiently distributed which is not effected by increasing the blocksize.

I really feel like talking to a brick wall. I specifically chose an extreme scenario to demonstrate you that mining centralization pressures exist (my original claim), no matter miners' readiness to switch pools. If there are only two pools located in the same data-center, what can you do as an individual miner?

What you are confusing here is this: "In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would not cause any mining centralization whatsoever" should at best be worded like that: "In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would be unlikely to cause any mining centralization, because centralization pressures would be negligible". Even in this form it can be debated whether these pressures would be insignificant.

You are still missing the point that I am making, this statement should be rephrased like this then instead: "In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would be unlikely to cause any pool centralization, because centralization pressures would be negligible".

This would be a more accurate statement, while this would also still support my statement that increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization. This is why this distinction between pool centralization and mining centralization is so important.

[bambou]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off.

[RoadTrain]

You don't say anything new; in fact, you're reiterating your claims as if I never challenged them.
I'll try again, the last time: there are network topology issues which result in an uneven block propagation. Uneven propagation alters the orphan race outcomes for different players (mostly pools), making some of them more profitable. The larger blocks get, the larger is the financial difference. This is what alters the incentive structure.

This is exactly my point, it effects the pools not the miners. This is a very important distinction, since if miners are not effected it does not increase mining centralization, it could effect pool centralization if increased to much however for pools it is trivial to setup a full node inside of a data center, which is why pools can support much larger blocks without increasing centralization. It is important to point out the distinction between mining centralization and pool centralization, what you are discussing effects pool centralization, therefore increasing the blocksize does not increase mining centralization.

I can't see how this distinction is of much value, as in the end most miners will have to mine at pools, which are being centralized.

Pools are masters, and miners are slaves. Yes, miners can change their masters, but they can't get free. In the end, the pools that give the most (more income due to natural reasons) will attract most miners.

Just imagine an extreme situation with ~8Gb (read: very large) blocks. In this case, apparently the most effective configuration would be 1 single pool, or a couple pools located in the same data-center. And you miners wouldn't be able to do anything with this centralization.

This distinction is critical in understanding the issues of mining and pool centralization.

The point is miners will not allow one pool to grow to large, since this would undermine the basic value proposition of Bitcoin. It is also actually the other way around, the pools serve the miners. Since it is the miners that control the hashing power. I am not advocating eight gigabyte blocks today that would be ridiculous. In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would not cause any mining centralization whatsoever.

If you really think that miners will conspire or will be forced to fundamentally undermine the value proposition of Bitcoin itself then you do not understand the fundamental incentive mechanisms and game theory inherent in its design. Bitcoin is sustained and maintained by the miners who are incentivized not to undermine the value of Bitcoin, this is why pools are not approaching fifty one percent any more and they never will as long as the hashing power remains sufficiently distributed which is not effected by increasing the blocksize.

I really feel like talking to a brick wall. I specifically chose an extreme scenario to demonstrate you that mining centralization pressures exist (my original claim), no matter miners' readiness to switch pools. If there are only two pools located in the same data-center, what can you do as an individual miner?

What you are confusing here is this: "In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would not cause any mining centralization whatsoever" should at best be worded like that: "In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would be unlikely to cause any mining centralization, because centralization pressures would be negligible". Even in this form it can be debated whether these pressures would be insignificant.

You are still missing the point that I am making, this statement should be rephrased like this then instead: "In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would be unlikely to cause any pool centralization, because centralization pressures would be negligible".

This would be a more accurate statement, while this would still also support that increasing the block size does not lead increased mining centralization. This is why this distinction between pool centralization and mining centralization is so important.

No, I clearly see the point, but I consider it largely irrelevant as miners have to pool their mining power anyway, and with large blocks their options (voting as you name it) are diminishing towards nothing... Anyway, I have nothing to add here.

[knight22]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant.

[bambou]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant.

Whilst most people still use debit cards, poor people sheeps dreaming of everlasting free-spamming-on-chain transactions are, yet again, irrelevant.

[brg444]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant.

You really need to ramp up your arguments, maybe ask Peter for some pointers. You sound like the retarded one from the bunch  

[VeritasSapere]

You don't say anything new; in fact, you're reiterating your claims as if I never challenged them.
I'll try again, the last time: there are network topology issues which result in an uneven block propagation. Uneven propagation alters the orphan race outcomes for different players (mostly pools), making some of them more profitable. The larger blocks get, the larger is the financial difference. This is what alters the incentive structure.

This is exactly my point, it effects the pools not the miners. This is a very important distinction, since if miners are not effected it does not increase mining centralization, it could effect pool centralization if increased to much however for pools it is trivial to setup a full node inside of a data center, which is why pools can support much larger blocks without increasing centralization. It is important to point out the distinction between mining centralization and pool centralization, what you are discussing effects pool centralization, therefore increasing the blocksize does not increase mining centralization.

I can't see how this distinction is of much value, as in the end most miners will have to mine at pools, which are being centralized.

Pools are masters, and miners are slaves. Yes, miners can change their masters, but they can't get free. In the end, the pools that give the most (more income due to natural reasons) will attract most miners.

Just imagine an extreme situation with ~8Gb (read: very large) blocks. In this case, apparently the most effective configuration would be 1 single pool, or a couple pools located in the same data-center. And you miners wouldn't be able to do anything with this centralization.

This distinction is critical in understanding the issues of mining and pool centralization.

The point is miners will not allow one pool to grow to large, since this would undermine the basic value proposition of Bitcoin. It is also actually the other way around, the pools serve the miners. Since it is the miners that control the hashing power. I am not advocating eight gigabyte blocks today that would be ridiculous. In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would not cause any mining centralization whatsoever.

If you really think that miners will conspire or will be forced to fundamentally undermine the value proposition of Bitcoin itself then you do not understand the fundamental incentive mechanisms and game theory inherent in its design. Bitcoin is sustained and maintained by the miners who are incentivized not to undermine the value of Bitcoin, this is why pools are not approaching fifty one percent any more and they never will as long as the hashing power remains sufficiently distributed which is not effected by increasing the blocksize.

I really feel like talking to a brick wall. I specifically chose an extreme scenario to demonstrate you that mining centralization pressures exist (my original claim), no matter miners' readiness to switch pools. If there are only two pools located in the same data-center, what can you do as an individual miner?

What you are confusing here is this: "In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would not cause any mining centralization whatsoever" should at best be worded like that: "In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would be unlikely to cause any mining centralization, because centralization pressures would be negligible". Even in this form it can be debated whether these pressures would be insignificant.

You are still missing the point that I am making, this statement should be rephrased like this then instead: "In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would be unlikely to cause any pool centralization, because centralization pressures would be negligible".

This would be a more accurate statement, while this would still also support that increasing the block size does not lead increased mining centralization. This is why this distinction between pool centralization and mining centralization is so important.

No, I clearly see the point, but I consider it largely irrelevant as miners have to pool their mining power anyway, and with large blocks their options (voting as you name it) are diminishing towards nothing... Anyway, I have nothing to add here.

What you are saying here depends on there only being one or two pools in the future instead of there being ten or twenty pools like there are today. I do not have any reason to think that pools would become so centralized and that miners would support this, I certainly would not. I also do not think that increasing the blocksize would introduce such extreme pressures in terms of pool centralization, this seems exaggerated to me and it does not make sense to me in terms of incentive and game theory. Over the last six months the pool distribution has actually become more decentralized compared to the six months before then. Now that we also have multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin, node count has also increased, most likely stemming from this competition. So there certainly have been positive developments for decentralization over the past six months at least.

[knight22]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant.

Whilst most people still use debit cards, poor people sheeps dreaming of everlasting free-spamming-on-chain transactions are, yet again, irrelevant.

Forcing the market on your path won't work. I hope you know that.

[brg444]

Forcing the market on your path won't work. I hope you know that.

What you refer to as the market is a bunch of confused noobs.

As bambou just expressed: they're irrelevant.

[bambou]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant.

Whilst most people still use debit cards, poor people sheeps dreaming of everlasting free-spamming-on-chain transactions are, yet again, irrelevant.

Forcing the market on your path won't work. I hope you know that.

I'm not forcing you nor anyone else to use Bitcoin.

As per your understanding level illustrates, I however would highly recommend you to use ripple.

[knight22]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant.

Whilst most people still use debit cards, poor people sheeps dreaming of everlasting free-spamming-on-chain transactions are, yet again, irrelevant.

Forcing the market on your path won't work. I hope you know that.

I'm not forcing you nor anyone else to use Bitcoin.

As per your understanding level illustrates, I however would highly recommend you to use ripple.

Good so you agree that if more people want to be on chain while bitcoin can't give enough room to accommodate participants, most people will simply migrate to other more relevant blockchains. I highly doubts Ripple will get anywhere though. A more probably scenario is either an altcoin will take the largest market share that bitcoin can't serve or either a split fork of the bitcoin blockchain (most probable scenario IMO).

[brg444]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant.

Whilst most people still use debit cards, poor people sheeps dreaming of everlasting free-spamming-on-chain transactions are, yet again, irrelevant.

Forcing the market on your path won't work. I hope you know that.

I'm not forcing you nor anyone else to use Bitcoin.

As per your understanding level illustrates, I however would highly recommend you to use ripple.

Good so you agree that if more people want to be on chain while bitcoin can't give enough room to accommodate participants, most people will simply migrate to other more relevant blockchains. I highly doubts Ripple will get anywhere though. A more probably scenario is either an altcoin will take the largest market share that bitcoin can't serve or either a split fork of the bitcoin blockchain (most probable scenario IMO).

Yes I do think a Bitcoin-fork-thepoor may happen.

[bambou]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant.

Whilst most people still use debit cards, poor people sheeps dreaming of everlasting free-spamming-on-chain transactions are, yet again, irrelevant.

Forcing the market on your path won't work. I hope you know that.

I'm not forcing you nor anyone else to use Bitcoin.

As per your understanding level illustrates, I however would highly recommend you to use ripple.

Good so you agree that if more people want to be on chain while bitcoin can't give enough room to accommodate participants, most people will simply migrate to other more relevant blockchains. I highly doubts Ripple will get anywhere though. A more probably scenario is either an altcoin will take the largest market share that bitcoin can't serve or either a split fork of the bitcoin blockchain (most probable scenario IMO).

Sure, altcoin, govcoin, whatever "so-smart-and-loving-the-herd-blockchain-technology-10.0", you name it.

May you enjoy the comfort and freedom being agglutinated with the sheeple on a single centralized ledger.

Meanwhile, I (and other people) stick with Bitcoin, and Bitcoin will stick as is.

[adamstgBit]

I want bigger blooooocks!

[knight22]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant.

Whilst most people still use debit cards, poor people sheeps dreaming of everlasting free-spamming-on-chain transactions are, yet again, irrelevant.

Forcing the market on your path won't work. I hope you know that.

I'm not forcing you nor anyone else to use Bitcoin.

As per your understanding level illustrates, I however would highly recommend you to use ripple.

Good so you agree that if more people want to be on chain while bitcoin can't give enough room to accommodate participants, most people will simply migrate to other more relevant blockchains. I highly doubts Ripple will get anywhere though. A more probably scenario is either an altcoin will take the largest market share that bitcoin can't serve or either a split fork of the bitcoin blockchain (most probable scenario IMO).

Sure, altcoin, govcoin, whatever "so-smart-and-loving-the-herd-blockchain-technology-10.0", you name it.

May you enjoy the comfort and freedom being agglutinated with the sheeple on a single centralized ledger.

Meanwhile, I (and other people) stick with Bitcoin, and Bitcoin will stick as is.

Until you realize that good enough decentralization is good enough and bitcoin is being left behind because it is unnecessary over decentralized to a point it cannot scale and cannot keep on the race.

[poeEDgar]

I want bigger blooooocks!

Bigger blocks would require a good deal of adoption, which has yet to happen. Whether you want the limit raised or not.