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

[brg444]

If/when there is contention for space on the blockchain, there is a huge amount of room to grow by simply squeezing out the freeloaders.  As it happens, they'll not be left homeless or forced to the alt-ville ghettos due to the development of subordinate chains which provide real Bitcoin power through a proxy and does not bloat the core chain and thus compromise the network or require a hard-fork and associated risk.

In other words, life is good!  Just look at the price charts for confirmation.  It is funny (and not very surprising) to see the likes of Coinbase desperate to reverse the goodness.

Squeezing out the freeloaders? I suppose that would include myself and many other users of Bitcoin, I pay fees but I would not be prepared to pay much larger fees if I can just use an alternative currency instead, Bitcoin does still need to compete. Who are you to say what is a legitimate use of the blockchain and what is not, we should allow as many people as possible to use the blockchain so that its benefits are felt by more people in the world. Third parties build on top of the Bitcoin blockchain do not have the same benefits as transacting on the main bitcoin blockchain directly, no thank you to using third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, not for me at least.

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"For everything else there's Mastercard"

[VeritasSapere]

Yes it has to happen soon, do you remember how I said there could be a spike of adoption due to global events and this is why we should increase the blocksize before this happens. Well it has happened, capital controls in china combined with favorable rulings in the EU have created the perfect storm. The blocks are now becoming consistently full and if we do not increase the blocksize soon, transactions will be rendered unreliable. This would not be a good experience for all of the new people that are now joining our community.

https://blockchain.info/
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

If/when there is contention for space on the blockchain, there is a huge amount of room to grow by simply squeezing out the freeloaders.  As it happens, they'll not be left homeless or forced to the alt-ville ghettos due to the development of subordinate chains which provide real Bitcoin power through a proxy and does not bloat the core chain and thus compromise the network or require a hard-fork and associated risk.

In other words, life is good!  Just look at the price charts for confirmation.  It is funny (and not very surprising) to see the likes of Coinbase desperate to reverse the goodness.

Squeezing out the freeloaders? I suppose that would include myself and many other users of Bitcoin, I pay fees but I would not be prepared to pay much larger fees if I can just use an alternative currency instead, Bitcoin does still need to compete. Who are you to say what is a legitimate use of the blockchain and what is not, we should allow as many people as possible to use the blockchain so that its benefits are felt by more people in the world. Third parties build on top of the Bitcoin blockchain do not have the same benefits as transacting on the main bitcoin blockchain directly, so no thank you to using third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, not for me at least.

Bitcoin  doesn't compete on the basis of transaction fees.

It competes on all levels, both with fiat and altcoins. Transaction fees are definitely an aspect of that, when the fee goes up, many people will no longer be able to use Bitcoin for smaller transactions, including myself. I would have to move this business over to another blockchain, this certainly is a case of Bitcoin losing business because it can not compete. Not to mention transactions becoming unreliable, this would certainly make other alternatives more attractive.

I am not overly concerned with this scenario however, the writing on the wall seems to indicate that the blocksize will be increased, incentives are aligning.

[Zarathustra]

If/when there is contention for space on the blockchain, there is a huge amount of room to grow by simply squeezing out the freeloaders.  As it happens, they'll not be left homeless or forced to the alt-ville ghettos due to the development of subordinate chains which provide real Bitcoin power through a proxy and does not bloat the core chain and thus compromise the network or require a hard-fork and associated risk.

In other words, life is good!  Just look at the price charts for confirmation.  It is funny (and not very surprising) to see the likes of Coinbase desperate to reverse the goodness.

Squeezing out the freeloaders? I suppose that would include myself and many other users of Bitcoin, I pay fees but I would not be prepared to pay much larger fees if I can just use an alternative currency instead, Bitcoin does still need to compete. Who are you to say what is a legitimate use of the blockchain and what is not, we should allow as many people as possible to use the blockchain so that its benefits are felt by more people in the world. Third parties build on top of the Bitcoin blockchain do not have the same benefits as transacting on the main bitcoin blockchain directly, no thank you to using third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, not for me at least.

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases. 

The overwhelming majority of txs are not latte purchases. The 'bitcoin as a settlement layer' phantasies are new phantasies, pushed by the corporatist blockthestreamers.

[VeritasSapere]

If/when there is contention for space on the blockchain, there is a huge amount of room to grow by simply squeezing out the freeloaders.  As it happens, they'll not be left homeless or forced to the alt-ville ghettos due to the development of subordinate chains which provide real Bitcoin power through a proxy and does not bloat the core chain and thus compromise the network or require a hard-fork and associated risk.

In other words, life is good!  Just look at the price charts for confirmation.  It is funny (and not very surprising) to see the likes of Coinbase desperate to reverse the goodness.

Squeezing out the freeloaders? I suppose that would include myself and many other users of Bitcoin, I pay fees but I would not be prepared to pay much larger fees if I can just use an alternative currency instead, Bitcoin does still need to compete. Who are you to say what is a legitimate use of the blockchain and what is not, we should allow as many people as possible to use the blockchain so that its benefits are felt by more people in the world. Third parties build on top of the Bitcoin blockchain do not have the same benefits as transacting on the main bitcoin blockchain directly, no thank you to using third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, not for me at least.

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

I think that the blocksize should be increased as much as the technical limitations will allow it be increased without sacrificing decentralization and financial freedom. If small transactions are no longer possible even after this increase, I would accept that. However arbitrarily restricting the blocksize is wrong, since this would unnecessarily restrict the use of the Bitcoin blockchain when it otherwise could have done so much more good in the world.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

If/when there is contention for space on the blockchain, there is a huge amount of room to grow by simply squeezing out the freeloaders.  As it happens, they'll not be left homeless or forced to the alt-ville ghettos due to the development of subordinate chains which provide real Bitcoin power through a proxy and does not bloat the core chain and thus compromise the network or require a hard-fork and associated risk.

In other words, life is good!  Just look at the price charts for confirmation.  It is funny (and not very surprising) to see the likes of Coinbase desperate to reverse the goodness.

Squeezing out the freeloaders? I suppose that would include myself and many other users of Bitcoin, I pay fees but I would not be prepared to pay much larger fees if I can just use an alternative currency instead, Bitcoin does still need to compete. Who are you to say what is a legitimate use of the blockchain and what is not, we should allow as many people as possible to use the blockchain so that its benefits are felt by more people in the world. Third parties build on top of the Bitcoin blockchain do not have the same benefits as transacting on the main bitcoin blockchain directly, no thank you to using third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, not for me at least.

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.

[brg444]

If/when there is contention for space on the blockchain, there is a huge amount of room to grow by simply squeezing out the freeloaders.  As it happens, they'll not be left homeless or forced to the alt-ville ghettos due to the development of subordinate chains which provide real Bitcoin power through a proxy and does not bloat the core chain and thus compromise the network or require a hard-fork and associated risk.

In other words, life is good!  Just look at the price charts for confirmation.  It is funny (and not very surprising) to see the likes of Coinbase desperate to reverse the goodness.

Squeezing out the freeloaders? I suppose that would include myself and many other users of Bitcoin, I pay fees but I would not be prepared to pay much larger fees if I can just use an alternative currency instead, Bitcoin does still need to compete. Who are you to say what is a legitimate use of the blockchain and what is not, we should allow as many people as possible to use the blockchain so that its benefits are felt by more people in the world. Third parties build on top of the Bitcoin blockchain do not have the same benefits as transacting on the main bitcoin blockchain directly, no thank you to using third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, not for me at least.

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

I think that the blocksize should be increased as much as the technical limitations will allow it be increased without sacrificing decentralization and financial freedom. If small transactions are no longer possible even after this increase, I would accept that. However arbitrarily restricting the blocksize is wrong, since this would unnecessarily restrict the use of the Bitcoin blockchain when it otherwise could have done so much more good in the world.

Some are already sacrificing their financial freedom because of their inability to run a node.

Do you wanna be the next one?

Oh no that's right I forgot....

I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.

[tvbcof]

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.

Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!

[tl121]

Am I the only person reading this thread who has concluded that most of the small-block posts are made by paid shills?

[brg444]

Am I the only person reading this thread who has concluded that most of the small-block posts are made by paid shills?

I wish!

Bitcoin is paying me pretty well right about now though 

[tvbcof]

Am I the only person reading this thread who has concluded that most of the small-block posts are made by paid shills?

Doubt it.  I'm sure there are other tards reading this board.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  Third world problems are not my problems.

[brg444]

I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  Third world problems are not my problems.

False analogy.

There is no alternative to run a full node. There will be plenty of alternatives to transact bitcoins.

[hdbuck]

I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  Third world problems are not my problems.

False analogy.

There is no alternative to run a full node. There will be plenty of alternatives to transact bitcoins.

probably too dumb for bitcoin.

[tvbcof]

I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  Third world problems are not my problems.

You should change your name to 'ToDumbForQuotes'

To your point, it is perfectly possible to enjoy the strength of real Bitcoin without ever touching one if one is to indigent to be able to own a pot to piss in.  Just use straight sidechains.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  Third world problems are not my problems.

False analogy.

There is no alternative to run a full node. There will be plenty of alternatives to transact bitcoins.

My friend and I can each give up our full node and share in the cost of running a full node between us.  

[brg444]

I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  Third world problems are not my problems.

False analogy.

There is no alternative to run a full node. There will be plenty of alternatives to transact bitcoins.

My friend and I can each give up our full node and share in the cost of running a full node between us.  

If you trust your friend then sure.

[VeritasSapere]

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.

Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!

You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks, payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.

[muyuu]

You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.

LOL everybody is running to pay thousands of dollars of fees and fill up 1MB, when they don't even fill them up at a measly 5c/tx rate.

[brg444]

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.

Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!

You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.

Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.

[VeritasSapere]

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.

Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!

You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.

Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.

If the blocksize is not increased, then we will not be able to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain directly over the long term, you are correct in saying this. This is why the blocksize should be increased. This is why the blocksize will be increased, incentives are aligning.