The Tragedy of the Core

[billyjoeallen]

Already most of people here recognise XT like danger for bicoin,whatdo you want from bitcoin core,everything was going in right direction,maybe slow  but right way.And now XT developers are trying to say that thay came to rescue btc from crash,lies.lies,lies

"maybe slow"?? Bullshit! This is the fucking Internet. We want big ass blocks and we want them now!  . We don't have time too wait.  It is not certain that there will be ANY block size increase and there won't be certainty until it actually happens.  If they at least implemented Garzik's 2MB blocks while we continued to work on a more permanent solution THEN I would be convinced that there is some assurance that a solution will come before the network gets jammed like the I5 in Los Angeles during rush hour.

If the debate is about scalability vs. decentralization or scalability vs. security (and youy damn well know it is), then there is NO commitment from a critical mass of core devs to increase blocksize with minimal impact on the other characteristics.  It's till a very much "IF" debate and not a "when and by how much" debate.  That is not progress.  That is unacceptable. 

[ElectricMucus]

billyjoeallen, from time to time I have to remind myself that poe's law exists when I read your posts.

And gavin un-subscribing from /r/Bitcoin, that's so fucking sweet! We comedy gold miners secretly hope for a schism in the literal sense and it seems we might get our wish.

[brg444]

Already most of people here recognise XT like danger for bicoin,whatdo you want from bitcoin core,everything was going in right direction,maybe slow  but right way.And now XT developers are trying to say that thay came to rescue btc from crash,lies.lies,lies

"maybe slow"?? Bullshit! This is the fucking Internet. We want big ass blocks and we want them now!  . We don't have time too wait.  It is not certain that there will be ANY block size increase and there won't be certainty until it actually happens.  If they at least implemented Garzik's 2MB blocks while we continued to work on a more permanent solution THEN I would be convinced that there is some assurance that a solution will come before the network gets jammed like the I5 in Los Angeles during rush hour.

If the debate is about scalability vs. decentralization or scalability vs. security (and youy damn well know it is), then there is NO commitment from a critical mass of core devs to increase blocksize with minimal impact on the other characteristics.  It's till a very much "IF" debate and not a "when and by how much" debate.  That is not progress.  That is unacceptable. 

Maybe you could sell them some block space? What if we all chip in?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You might get a block increase, but you will be sorely disappointed by its results. Why do you want a block increase anyway?

To make bitcoin ready for future growth in transaction rate. To make room for new users, merchants and use cases. To keep transaction fees competitive and affordable to larger demographic. To give confidence to all actors in bitcoin space that the transaction rate will not be stunted by some artificial cap designed for a completely different purpose. To give an opportunity to Satoshi's vision that the  "eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets". (We wouldn't have bitcoin if he wasn't right in great many things)

Well, that's few reasons I could think just now, but there's probably more.

*two hands clapping*

Well said.

[Chef Ramsay]

Already most of people here recognise XT like danger for bicoin,whatdo you want from bitcoin core,everything was going in right direction,maybe slow  but right way.And now XT developers are trying to say that thay came to rescue btc from crash,lies.lies,lies

"maybe slow"?? Bullshit! This is the fucking Internet. We want big ass blocks and we want them now!  . We don't have time too wait.  It is not certain that there will be ANY block size increase and there won't be certainty until it actually happens.  If they at least implemented Garzik's 2MB blocks while we continued to work on a more permanent solution THEN I would be convinced that there is some assurance that a solution will come before the network gets jammed like the I5 in Los Angeles during rush hour.

If the debate is about scalability vs. decentralization or scalability vs. security (and youy damn well know it is), then there is NO commitment from a critical mass of core devs to increase blocksize with minimal impact on the other characteristics.  It's till a very much "IF" debate and not a "when and by how much" debate.  That is not progress.  That is unacceptable. 

Maybe you could sell them some block space? What if we all chip in?

BJA has been emotional and/or logical for quite some time now about this whole blocksize debate so it'll be interesting to see what comes out of this .CA session that is upcoming. This bullcrap needs to be finalized so folks know whether to spec or dip. PM me the details if this shit is revealed overnight at some point. Ultimately bullish, tho.

[brg444]

You might get a block increase, but you will be sorely disappointed by its results. Why do you want a block increase anyway?

To make bitcoin ready for future growth in transaction rate. To make room for new users, merchants and use cases. To keep transaction fees competitive and affordable to larger demographic. To give confidence to all actors in bitcoin space that the transaction rate will not be stunted by some artificial cap designed for a completely different purpose. To give an opportunity to Satoshi's vision that the  "eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets". (We wouldn't have bitcoin if he wasn't right in great many things)

Well, that's few reasons I could think just now, but there's probably more.

boring

[molecular]

You might get a block increase, but you will be sorely disappointed by its results. Why do you want a block increase anyway?

To make bitcoin ready for future growth in transaction rate. To make room for new users, merchants and use cases. To keep transaction fees competitive and affordable to larger demographic. To give confidence to all actors in bitcoin space that the transaction rate will not be stunted by some artificial cap designed for a completely different purpose. To give an opportunity to Satoshi's vision that the  "eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets". (We wouldn't have bitcoin if he wasn't right in great many things)

Well, that's few reasons I could think just now, but there's probably more.

boring

very sophisticated way to communicate, dude. Do you always react like that when you run out of firepower? Just goes to show...

[brg444]

You might get a block increase, but you will be sorely disappointed by its results. Why do you want a block increase anyway?

To make bitcoin ready for future growth in transaction rate. To make room for new users, merchants and use cases. To keep transaction fees competitive and affordable to larger demographic. To give confidence to all actors in bitcoin space that the transaction rate will not be stunted by some artificial cap designed for a completely different purpose. To give an opportunity to Satoshi's vision that the  "eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets". (We wouldn't have bitcoin if he wasn't right in great many things)

Well, that's few reasons I could think just now, but there's probably more.

boring

very sophisticated way to communicate, dude. Do you always react like that when you run out of firepower? Just goes to show...

"Not care how big it gets"

Do you grok the implications of this?

I don't care if Satoshi said it this is nothing that deserves a serious response.

[Denker]

You might get a block increase, but you will be sorely disappointed by its results. Why do you want a block increase anyway?

To make bitcoin ready for future growth in transaction rate. To make room for new users, merchants and use cases. To keep transaction fees competitive and affordable to larger demographic. To give confidence to all actors in bitcoin space that the transaction rate will not be stunted by some artificial cap designed for a completely different purpose. To give an opportunity to Satoshi's vision that the  "eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets". (We wouldn't have bitcoin if he wasn't right in great many things)

Well, that's few reasons I could think just now, but there's probably more.

boring

very sophisticated way to communicate, dude. Do you always react like that when you run out of firepower? Just goes to show...

"Not care how big it gets"

Do you grok the implications of this?

I don't care if Satoshi said it this is nothing that deserves a serious response.

Bla blabla bla blabla bla!

[Q7]

I still can't see the rationale of denying the larger block size. We know system has weaknesses yet we chose to accept and live with it. I guess you have to really see how broken it is before starts pressing the panic button.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Bitcoin works ok if you pay the normal fee. If you want to pay 0 fees, then expect problems. Isn't this a given by now? we can't stay and super mega low fees forever, so pay your goddamned fee (which is the same if you are paying 1 or 1000000000000000000 dollars).

[molecular]

Bitcoin works ok if you pay the normal fee.

It works ok with the current amount of users.

Take 10 times as many users and no amount of fees will make the transaction demand fit into the blocks.

As it is, Bitcoin doesn't scale.