Thanks to people who support 1-2 MB blocks - great idea u fools...

[RealBitcoin]

Can you destroy a Bitcoin private key?

Without a blockchain a Bitcoin private key is just a random number (and you can create those very easily).

So the value of not being able to "destroy" a random number is exactly what?

Blockchain can not be destroyed either, just temporarily out of service 

Maybe with a global EMP strike it could. After all it would wipe off all online computers.

And the few offline PC's would really not matter afterwards.

[cbeast]

Can you destroy a Bitcoin private key?

Without a blockchain a Bitcoin private key is just a random number (and you can create those very easily).

So the value of not being able to "destroy" a random number is exactly what?

Blockchain can not be destroyed either, just temporarily out of service 

Maybe with a global EMP strike it could. After all it would wipe off all online computers.

And the few offline PC's would really not matter afterwards.

So could global thermonuclear war created ebola zombies with laser beam eyes.

[RoadTrain]

The #1 attraction of Bitcoin is its monetary sovereignty. This is how it proposes to change people's life. Not because of free & instant transactions.

You can say the same thing about any altcoin.

Sure, about any Bitcoin-like altcoin. The difference is that Bitcoin provides much more security and utility, thanks to its market share.

If an altcoin toppled Bitcoin, it would tun into exactly the same problem Bitcoin is facing today, i.e. security-scalability tradeoff.

[Le Happy Merchant]

If they have such high throughput needs, why use bitcoin in the first place and not create their own altcoin?

Because every application built on top of bitcoin increases its value. Can we please stop forking shit?

[iCEBREAKER]

jgarzik suggests in his talk that Fidelity investment company has a beta bitcoin project which it is cannot turn on, because it would "max out" bitcoin capacity and future capacity growth is unknown[

jgarzik (and Gavin, etc) now support Classic, which is a 2MB fork.  great idea u fools...

Code:

rekt

[SebastianJu]

If they have such high throughput needs, why use bitcoin in the first place and not create their own altcoin?

Because every application built on top of bitcoin increases its value. Can we please stop forking shit?

That statement would only be true when the actual bitcoin would work better then. It certainly is not true when the services are built to replace a non working bitcoin or even worse bitcoin is held nonworking so that people will use the applications.

[cbeast]

If Bitcoin doesn't hard fork to a larger blocksize before the halving, not only will blocks remain full, but miners will drop and those transactions will wait even longer. Blocksize won't grow until there is adoption and adoption won't grow until there is a larger blocksize. Governance of a fools game.

[vinaha]

If a company has an app for Bitcoin that is going to max out each block when they switch it on, they shouldn't be using the Bitcoin blockchain. The blockchain is not intended for one sole individual or company to hoard at that level, even if we do have bigger blocks.

[steeev]

garzik has stepped into hearn's slip ons as gavin's accomplice and this thread returns -  so we see the beginning of the push beyond 2MB being broached - how long now before an XT- alike plan is proposed as a 'development' to address this ?

are the classic clunkers really so dumb they thought 2MB would be the end of it ?

the foot in the door has been joined by a hand in the jamb as the tone hardens -  to be in support of classic is to be participating in Bitcoin's demise...



(of course there are those involved in development that understand the issues at a deeper level, and have come up with a solution to keeping the network distributed while allowing bloaters their own 'freedom')...

Epicenter Bitcoin EB65 - Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell : Sidechains Unchained

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE_elgnIw3M

Epicenter Bitcoin EB95 - Adam Back - Why Bitcoin Needs A Measured Approach To Scaling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYHyR2E5Pic

[cbeast]

garzik has stepped into hearn's slip ons as gavin's accomplice and this thread returns -  so we see the beginning of the push beyond 2MB being broached - how long now before an XT- alike plan is proposed as a 'development' to address this ?

are the classic clunkers really so dumb they thought 2MB would be the end of it ?

Who is still saying Bitcoin will never scale beyond 2MB?

[Zarathustra]

Fork Race Update: 315 : 155 nodes (Bitcoin Classic Hardfork 0.11.2 : Blockthestream Softfork 0.12.0)

[SebastianJu]

Fork Race Update: 315 : 155 nodes (Bitcoin Classic Hardfork 0.11.2 : Blockthestream Softfork 0.12.0)

Sorry but nodes mean nothing i think. I think an increase is inevitably as long as you want bitcoin adoption and not forcing users out of bitcoin into alternate systems like lightning network, but nodes mean nothing in the decision. Mining power coming from those nodes, that's import for sure.

[chek2fire]

Fork Race Update: 315 : 155 nodes (Bitcoin Classic Hardfork 0.11.2 : Blockthestream Softfork 0.12.0)

Sorry but nodes mean nothing i think. I think an increase is inevitably as long as you want bitcoin adoption and not forcing users out of bitcoin into alternate systems like lightning network, but nodes mean nothing in the decision. Mining power coming from those nodes, that's import for sure.

You are wrong with this. If a hard fork happens nodes can reject the block that create miners that support fork. The legit nodes are the last defence in a malicious attack to the system like a hard fork attack.
And this number says nothing because we dont have an official new versiuon of bitcoin core to update.
The other think i like to say is that anyone who support a hard fork without first the segwit patch and the changes of 0.12.0 is simple fool and dont know anything about how bitcoin works. Simple is that bitcoin system can't handle a block size increase even to 2mb as it is now.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Fork Race Update: 315 : 155 nodes (Bitcoin Classic Hardfork 0.11.2 : Blockthestream Softfork 0.12.0)

Sorry but nodes mean nothing i think. I think an increase is inevitably as long as you want bitcoin adoption and not forcing users out of bitcoin into alternate systems like lightning network, but nodes mean nothing in the decision. Mining power coming from those nodes, that's import for sure.

You are wrong with this. If a hard fork happens nodes can reject the block that create miners that support fork. The legit nodes are the last defence in a malicious attack to the system like a hard fork attack.
And this number says nothing because we dont have an official new versiuon of bitcoin core to update.
The other think i like to say is that anyone who support a hard fork without first the segwit patch and the changes of 0.12.0 is simple fool and dont know anything about how bitcoin works. Simple is that bitcoin system can't handle a block size increase even to 2mb as it is now.

Holy fuck. Where did core find you? Are they trawling homeless shelters now?

[chek2fire]

Fork Race Update: 315 : 155 nodes (Bitcoin Classic Hardfork 0.11.2 : Blockthestream Softfork 0.12.0)

Sorry but nodes mean nothing i think. I think an increase is inevitably as long as you want bitcoin adoption and not forcing users out of bitcoin into alternate systems like lightning network, but nodes mean nothing in the decision. Mining power coming from those nodes, that's import for sure.

You are wrong with this. If a hard fork happens nodes can reject the block that create miners that support fork. The legit nodes are the last defence in a malicious attack to the system like a hard fork attack.
And this number says nothing because we dont have an official new versiuon of bitcoin core to update.
The other think i like to say is that anyone who support a hard fork without first the segwit patch and the changes of 0.12.0 is simple fool and dont know anything about how bitcoin works. Simple is that bitcoin system can't handle a block size increase even to 2mb as it is now.

Holy fuck. Where did core find you? Are they trawling homeless shelters now?

Because english is not my country language didnt make me and a homeless. Everyone that support nonsense like Classic and the other joke BitcoinXT they dint know anything about how bitcoin works. They act like a zerg without even thinking what all of that means.

[jonald_fyookball]

What is a zerg?

[chek2fire]

What is a zerg?

http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Zerg

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

What is a zerg?

The guy he bunks with.

[SebastianJu]

Fork Race Update: 315 : 155 nodes (Bitcoin Classic Hardfork 0.11.2 : Blockthestream Softfork 0.12.0)

Sorry but nodes mean nothing i think. I think an increase is inevitably as long as you want bitcoin adoption and not forcing users out of bitcoin into alternate systems like lightning network, but nodes mean nothing in the decision. Mining power coming from those nodes, that's import for sure.

You are wrong with this. If a hard fork happens nodes can reject the block that create miners that support fork. The legit nodes are the last defence in a malicious attack to the system like a hard fork attack.
And this number says nothing because we dont have an official new versiuon of bitcoin core to update.
The other think i like to say is that anyone who support a hard fork without first the segwit patch and the changes of 0.12.0 is simple fool and dont know anything about how bitcoin works. Simple is that bitcoin system can't handle a block size increase even to 2mb as it is now.

But if these nodes reject the block should not really matter since they would only be clients, not miners with a good amount of hashpower. They can reject all they want but only the hashpower would decide which chain wins, isn't it?

You mean the block chain can not handle 2mb blocks because of this 10 minute verification time transaction? As far as i have read there is already a fix existing that only needs to get implemented.

[alani123]

Fork Race Update: 315 : 155 nodes (Bitcoin Classic Hardfork 0.11.2 : Blockthestream Softfork 0.12.0)

Sorry but nodes mean nothing i think. I think an increase is inevitably as long as you want bitcoin adoption and not forcing users out of bitcoin into alternate systems like lightning network, but nodes mean nothing in the decision. Mining power coming from those nodes, that's import for sure.

You are wrong with this. If a hard fork happens nodes can reject the block that create miners that support fork. The legit nodes are the last defence in a malicious attack to the system like a hard fork attack.
And this number says nothing because we dont have an official new versiuon of bitcoin core to update.
The other think i like to say is that anyone who support a hard fork without first the segwit patch and the changes of 0.12.0 is simple fool and dont know anything about how bitcoin works. Simple is that bitcoin system can't handle a block size increase even to 2mb as it is now.

Holy fuck. Where did core find you? Are they trawling homeless shelters now?

Ad hominems , classy.