.

[Richy_T]

So if I decide that my posts should be included on the blockchain, and a miner decides that a few Satoshi will reward hie enough to include them in a number of blocks, then that will be of benefit to Bitcoin. Even though every node will have to store them forever.

Dear Curious.
TL;DR: Yes, that's how Bitcoin works.

^This.

Or at least it's how it did work before the fee event.

[Richy_T]

However segwit is not ready yet now

How can you claim something like this? Have you done sufficient testing that proves that segwit will not be ready for April? If not, then don't make false statements.

Is it April already? I must have overslept.

[Richy_T]

yep 2mb rule allows real capacity buffer increase, ready for when miners are ready to expand

The 2mb rule would also be trivial to back-port for people who want to run older versions but still maintain consensus but not be running a crippled node.

[bitboy11]

not so against any kind of increase in the max block size

The Bitcoin Core capacity roadmap includes several block size increases, including the immediate term segwit proposal that many people are actively working on (and which has a testnet)-- which increases the capacity to fairly close to Gavin's latest proposal (which is not BIP 102).

Your words are meaningless...you have already been bought and sold!
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830#.v9slxajwd

[bitboy11]

not so against any kind of increase in the max block size

The Bitcoin Core capacity roadmap includes several block size increases, including the immediate term segwit proposal that many people are actively working on (and which has a testnet)-- which increases the capacity to fairly close to Gavin's latest proposal (which is not BIP 102).

'immediate term' , no one knows what that means exactly.  3 months? 6 months? 18 months? 
This would be more immediate, simpler, and arguably more robust and less risky. What does core have against it?

The community has been screaming for bigger blocks.  If core won't accept Gavin's proposal, it means
one of three things:

1.  They don't care what the community wants (despite their pleas for consensus). 
2. They think they know what is best and are too stubborn to accept anyone else's priorities.
3. They have an alterior motives.

Could be a combination of all the above.

Mr. G. Maxwell is a key developer on Core in addition to being a founder of Blockstream.
What do you think is his agenda?

[bitboy11]

Gavin Andresen = Coinbase= Bitstamp = Okcoin= Marc Andreessen= Andreessen Horowitz & Co.

Gavin Andresen = Coinbase = Bitstamp
Gregory Maxwell = Blockstream = Liquid 

[figmentofmyass]

not so against any kind of increase in the max block size

The Bitcoin Core capacity roadmap includes several block size increases, including the immediate term segwit proposal that many people are actively working on (and which has a testnet)-- which increases the capacity to fairly close to Gavin's latest proposal (which is not BIP 102).

'immediate term' , no one knows what that means exactly.  3 months? 6 months? 18 months? 
This would be more immediate, simpler, and arguably more robust and less risky. What does core have against it?

The community has been screaming for bigger blocks.  If core won't accept Gavin's proposal, it means
one of three things:

1.  They don't care what the community wants (despite their pleas for consensus). 
2. They think they know what is best and are too stubborn to accept anyone else's priorities.
3. They have an alterior motives.

Could be a combination of all the above.

Mr. G. Maxwell is a key developer on Core in addition to being a founder of Blockstream.
What do you think is his agenda?

what do you think it is? i see so much of this insinuation that he (and others) have these nefarious intentions, but it seems no one can spell out what they are, and how it's going to work. just how is Blockstream causing such massive conflicts of interest? where does the money come in? the VC numbers i've heard thrown around are tiny and meaningless. what exactly about Blockstream is it -- specifically -- that has made people turn so vociferously on Core devs that have tirelessly worked for years to make bitcoin what it is?

[bitboy11]

Another power grab from a desperate developer that might just work, if he play the fiddle in the right manner. The trolls with the limited knowledge will jump onto this proposal without considering the possible consequences. We are driving around with a bus that are 50% to capacity and we are already calling for a double decker replacement.

The Core developers have put a lot of thought into SegWit and scaling for the future and loads of other advantages and we just want to take the first proposal, because we were told the 2 MB Block size increase would be the Nirvana.  

If your bus is 50% full, you already know that pretty soon it's going to be full. The smart thing to do is prepare for future expansion.

Segwit?
When I joined bitcoin there was and still is no segwit, nor am I interested in reversible transactions with a possible and yet unknown risk of backdoor attacks.

[bitboy11]

what do you think it is? i see so much of this insinuation that he (and others) have these nefarious intentions, but it seems no one can spell out what they are, and how it's going to work. just how is Blockstream causing such massive conflicts of interest? where does the money come in? the VC numbers i've heard thrown around are tiny and meaningless. what exactly about Blockstream is it -- specifically -- that has made people turn so vociferously on Core devs that have tirelessly worked for years to make bitcoin what it is?

Amount of money lost if Gavin Andresen receives rejected proposals = -$
Amount of money lost if Gregory Maxwell receives rejected proposals = -$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Who sounds like they have more to lose?
Who sounds like the genuine person now?

[figmentofmyass]

what do you think it is? i see so much of this insinuation that he (and others) have these nefarious intentions, but it seems no one can spell out what they are, and how it's going to work. just how is Blockstream causing such massive conflicts of interest? where does the money come in? the VC numbers i've heard thrown around are tiny and meaningless. what exactly about Blockstream is it -- specifically -- that has made people turn so vociferously on Core devs that have tirelessly worked for years to make bitcoin what it is?

Amount of money lost if Gavin Andresen receives rejected proposals = -$
Amount of money lost if Gregory Maxwell receives rejected proposals = -$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Who sounds like they have more to lose?
Who sounds like the genuine person now?

what proof do you have that Gavin Andresen isn't being paid to promote his fork? he is under no obligations (other than moral ones) to disclose to the community whose payroll he is on. why do you just assume that he is just some altruistic hero, when all he has done for the past year is try to take control of bitcoin's repository via two hard forks?

i think it's quite suspicious that Gavin said 2mb was "absurdly small" when attempting previously to remove Core's commit access with his XT fork.... and NOW is pushing for a 2mb hard fork to remove Core's commit access. never mind that Seg Wit nearly matches the capacity increase -- or better...

what proof do you have that "money is being lost if Gregory Maxwell receives rejected proposals?" what money? what is the business plan? what is the conflict of interest? spell it out for me, please.

[bitboy11]

I'm hoping we get to the point where the market realizes it's being toyed with here and repeated XT reloaded attempts are pretty meaningless. We're not seemingly there yet.

Have I basically summarized the last year? Anyone want to add any bullets?

Well thanks for that explanation and I couldn't agree with you more.
The problem is that I have unbiasedly read Mike, Gavin and now your explanation and everyone comes off like a freaking Saint.

My above posts were responses while reading the first 2 pages of this thread. So don't blame me if I jumped the gun...you don't expect me to read 19 pages before making a single comment, do you?

[bitboy11]

@figmentofmyass on Today at 08:08:55 AM

Please read this nice post that I quoted as I nor you have any idea who is truly speaking the truth and who is the charlatan.

Either one of them has an agenda or both or neither.
So who to follow?

Nice summary, but maybe you noticed that Gavin constantly change his proposal based on community feed back, which proved to be a much more efficient way of gaining support. Blockstream give me a feeling like: We decided, it should be done like this, because we are the expert and you should listen to us and respect our hard work. This is not a way to reach consensus in a community full of paranoid conspiracists    It's exactly this kind of people most attracted by bitcoin because they trust nobody by default

[bitboy11]

We decided, it should be done like this, because we are the expert and you should listen to us and respect our hard work. This is not a way to reach consensus in a community full of paranoid conspiracists    It's exactly this kind of people most attracted by bitcoin because they trust nobody by default

The majority is wrong in the most cases. Should we let the majority decide these things? Bitcoin is not a democracy either.

Really...is that so?
Then what is it a Monarchy or Totalitarianism?

[bitboy11]

I just made it to page 3 of this thread and I have also been reading the thread:
Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343716

Even though the bitcoin atmosphere feels like there may be an impending collapse if certain issues aren't addressed, I really don't believe that gmaxwell would destroy his own investment in any way so perhaps you are a genuine person.

However, if Gavin is the "bad" guy in all this, why hasn't he given up already?
Is he that dogged in his determination?
Is he the Terminator? 
He absolutely will not stop until Bitcoin is his!
It is strange...if he honestly believes that Core will destroy Bitcoin, why not create his own currency, why the great need to wrestle control from Core?

Either way, I really don't care which way Bitcoin goes!
I don't believe that either party is attempting to destroy Bitcoin. I think they simply have different ideologies about the direction Bitcoin should follow.

Each party simply has their own theory that their chosen Bitcoin model will scale better, while the other party denounces them. Either way, no group can truly prove the other wrong, however one group must be victorious.

May the best team win!

[Lauda]

This is strange answer coming from a bitcointalk.org staff member. But you are the same person that said Satoshi's vision is irrelevant? Funny how well now I can remember you and your ways.

Should I call you 'names' for quoting me out of context; albeit you'd come crying with "ad hominem"? It is obvious why you are doing this though and you intelligence is "astounding". Look at all those logical fallacies.

Strange indeed... the same people that cry most loudly against 'contentious hard forks' are the ones that seem to be against implementing a simple 2MB increase right now that would make the forking threat disappear.

It is not strange; you guys are making yourself obvious. Let me try this one more time:

What are the benefits of 2 MB blocks and what are the benefits of segwit if we exclude the increase in TPS? If your answer to the first question is nothing (it should be, you can't change this fact), then we have a clear winner. Time to move on.
The answer is a clear and indicative no. You can try to deny it, you can try to go around it, you can try to lie about it, but it won't change it. Aside from the increase in TPS that both proposals bring to the table, 2 MB block size brings nothing.

Face the facts. With segwit and the 'forkers' we have a nice case of personal incredulity.

Really...is that so?
Then what is it a Monarchy or Totalitarianism?

It could function better depending on who's leading, albeit it is neither one of those.

Segwit?
When I joined bitcoin there was and still is no segwit, nor am I interested in reversible transactions with a possible and yet unknown risk of backdoor attacks.

This makes no sense.

what exactly about Blockstream is it -- specifically -- that has made people turn so vociferously on Core devs that have tirelessly worked for years to make bitcoin what it is?

'Forkers' are mad that their idea is irrational, and thus Blockstream must be evil and blocking consensus.

Is it April already? I must have overslept.

Good luck gaining consensus (albeit 75% isn't consensus) for the HF before April. I'll push veto myself.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

This is strange answer coming from a bitcointalk.org staff member. But you are the same person that said Satoshi's vision is irrelevant? Funny how well now I can remember you and your ways.

Should I call you 'names' for quoting me out of context; albeit you'd come crying with "ad hominem"? It is obvious why you are doing this though and you intelligence is "astounding". Look at all those logical fallacies.

Strange indeed... the same people that cry most loudly against 'contentious hard forks' are the ones that seem to be against implementing a simple 2MB increase right now that would make the forking threat disappear.

It is not strange; you guys are making yourself obvious. Let me try this one more time:

What are the benefits of 2 MB blocks and what are the benefits of segwit if we exclude the increase in TPS? If your answer to the first question is nothing (it should be, you can't change this fact), then we have a clear winner. Time to move on.
The answer is a clear and indicative no. You can try to deny it, you can try to go around it, you can try to lie about it, but it won't change it. Aside from the increase in TPS that both proposals bring to the table, 2 MB block size brings nothing.

Face the facts. With segwit and the 'forkers' we have a nice case of personal incredulity.

Really...is that so?
Then what is it a Monarchy or Totalitarianism?

It could function better depending on who's leading, albeit it is neither one of those.

Segwit?
When I joined bitcoin there was and still is no segwit, nor am I interested in reversible transactions with a possible and yet unknown risk of backdoor attacks.

This makes no sense.

what exactly about Blockstream is it -- specifically -- that has made people turn so vociferously on Core devs that have tirelessly worked for years to make bitcoin what it is?

'Forkers' are mad that their idea is irrational, and thus Blockstream must be evil and blocking consensus.

Is it April already? I must have overslept.

Good luck gaining consensus (albeit 75% isn't consensus) for the HF before April. I'll push veto myself.

Lauda, do you ever get tired of fighting with everyone? Do you ever consider - for even a second - that you may not be 100% correct in your views?

I'll push veto myself

You do that Lauda.  You veto all you like while Bitcoin is sold out to the interests of Bankers over the users themselves. The very bankers it was conceived to circumvent.

You are just a cheap sell out.

[jonald_fyookball]

not so against any kind of increase in the max block size

The Bitcoin Core capacity roadmap includes several block size increases, including the immediate term segwit proposal that many people are actively working on (and which has a testnet)-- which increases the capacity to fairly close to Gavin's latest proposal (which is not BIP 102).

'immediate term' , no one knows what that means exactly.  3 months? 6 months? 18 months?  
This would be more immediate, simpler, and arguably more robust and less risky. What does core have against it?

The community has been screaming for bigger blocks.  If core won't accept Gavin's proposal, it means
one of three things:

1.  They don't care what the community wants (despite their pleas for consensus).  
2. They think they know what is best and are too stubborn to accept anyone else's priorities.
3. They have an alterior motives.

Could be a combination of all the above.

Mr. G. Maxwell is a key developer on Core in addition to being a founder of Blockstream.
What do you think is his agenda?

Its becoming more clear.

His agenda is to make Bitcoin a settlement layer, which is why he refuses to
agree to a blocksize increase and will try to attack any ideas suggesting one.

After that, the plan is to build other layers on top such as LN hubs,
of which blockstream will run one or more... and collect revenue, as well as
build hubs for other companies and collect even more revenue.  

(They will claim its all 'open source' make it as complicated and obfuscated as possible
to create a barrier to entry.)

Something like that.

That makes as much sense as anything.  I'm not clear on it 100%, but
what I'm nearly 100% sure of, is that they have some plan to
collect revenue.  You don't raise $76M in venture capital without one.  You just don't.

So if what I said isn't it, then I challenge anyone to bring a more
logical explanation.

[Lauda]

After that, the plan is to build other layers on top such as LN hubs,
of which blockstream will run one or more... and collect revenue, as well as
build hubs for other companies and collect even more revenue.  

(They will claim its all 'open source' make it as complicated and obfuscated as possible
to create a barrier to entry.)

There is no logic behind this statement because: 1) LN is Open Source; anyone can develop a version of it; 2) Anyone can run Hubs.
Their main source of revenue are supposed to be sidechains (IMO); LN has nothing to do with that. What do you think are the other developers since only 1 (paid) is working on LN? Another case of personal incredulity.
Update:

There are multiple implementations of the Lightning Network, the most advanced ones are:
Joseph, Tadge and roasbeef's version: https://github.com/LightningNetwork/lnd/  
Rusty'sversion (Blockstream): https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning

[jonald_fyookball]

Their main source of revenue are supposed to be sidechains (IMO)

How are they going to make money from Sidechains? 

Isn't that open source too?

I think Bitcoin transaction processing may be a much more
obvious and in demand market than sidechains.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

What do you think are the other developers since only 1 (paid) is working on LN? Another case of personal incredulity.

No, they have drafted in another US Gov/Google "consultant" who is changing the way LN works to make it easier for survellance security via USG-TOR

(I enjoyed that.  )

ps - personal incredulity?  what now?