Who have right and which is the best?

[n2004al]

Hello to everyone,

I am not a programmer or a developer but a simple follower and lover of bitcoin and first of all lover of peer to peer. Have not deep technological knowledge (having a totally different profession) of this last but I am able to understand the potential and the superiority of this technology compared to all existing ones with which can be compared or pretend to compete with it.

Must of us here in bitcointalk know that the very and the first well known successful product of peer to peer is bitcoin. All us here are primarily to discuss and learn more about it, its spread, its qualities, its weaknesses, its future; in few words about everything has to do with it (including its derivatives but yet all peer to peer products). The last months everyone of us was testimonial of the big "war" happened within the team of the core developers of bitcoin which has as end the division of this team on two mini teams which will "create" and "build" everyone its block of bitcoin.

Here begin my confusion which is even the aim of this thread. Being not a developer for me seems a totally stupidity and bullshit to be such situation only for only 1 MB difference on the increase of the size of the new block of production of bitcoins. But for sure it will be not so. Cannot be a stupidity or a bullshit create such big trouble for a pearl like bitcoin. Must be much more. And if a "Chinese team" of developers or creators create the third bitcoin block bitcoin with 8 MB what will happen? Will have three different bitcoin? Or only one but that will have different clothings? What will be the effect of these kind of variants on bitcoin itself, on its use and on its development as a product? Who can explain the why and the next of all this mess? Who can give answers about all write above? And at the end who team have right (giving arguments) and which is the best variant (giving arguments) of the above three size blocks?

I'm sorry if I'm not correct in something but this is what I have perceived and understand since now.

[CIYAM]

What is going on is purely and simply "politics" - there really hasn't been any scientific reasoning used about the need to increase the block size to any particular number (the proposals have changed several times already) but apparently it is "so urgent" that Gavin believes that the core devs should have the project taken away from them (and given to a team with only two decent programmers).

I wouldn't worry too much about it as the miners are not so likely to want to kill their own income by causing Bitcoin to fragment into several alts.

[n2004al]

What is going on is purely and simply "politics" - there really hasn't been any scientific reasoning used about the need to increase the block size to any particular number (the proposals have changed several times already) but apparently it is "so urgent" that Gavin believes that the core devs should have the project taken away from them (and given to a team with only two decent programmers).

I wouldn't worry too much about it as the miners are not so likely to want to kill their own income by causing Bitcoin to fragment into several alts.

Good. So my worries are not worthless. Exist the risk that bitcoin be split on other "minibitcoins" or in other cryptos which can take several names. Or it is not strange to see even the claim of each team to be the owner of the only real "bitcoin". I don't think that the situation is so harmless. At the homepage of bitcoin classic are shown some data and according to my knowledge of the bitcoin market the names which support Gavin are not so few or not important to not be taken in consideration. And to not forget that bitcoin classic is yet in the first days or weeks of its existence. As for the miners I will be not so sure that all them will not support bitcoin classic and there that will be not possible to be other new miners which can support bitcoin classic.

But the big problem according to me is another. If it is so easy to "develop" a new bitcoin, every year must be created a new team which can create their product as a new and better one; giving always the same name - bitcoin. We all know the power of the bitcoin market of China. If they create their bitcoin half of the market or even more for sure will use their product. Tomorrow may be another team in another emerging market to do the same and so can continue without end. How people have the code of bitcoin? Only for the getting out of his mind the codes of bitcoin Gavin must go in jail.

[bargainbin]

...
I wouldn't worry too much about it as the miners are not so likely to want to kill their own income by causing Bitcoin to fragment into several alts.

You are worried tho, it's all you ever talk about. Good...

[cjmoles]

Well, I don't code much either (no patience), but I think that the problem is wrapped around the economy of scale. While a larger block size will be needed if we want more people to adopt it, problems arise within the proof or work system...How much are the big mining platforms willing to sacrifice to make that change; they're the ones doing all the work!  Now, if Bitcoin allows itself to become regulated, that would increase its adoption rate substantially and Bitcoin is not robust enough to handle a very fast and large adoption.  So, the question really is political.  Do we allow some sort of backdoor regulation that would increase its acceptance, therefore, its scale and, if so, how much and on what time frame?

Now, I'm no expert by any means....that's just my interpretation.  I'd enjoy listening to other, more informed, interpretations because it is a fascinating topic and I am interested.

[CIYAM]

...
I wouldn't worry too much about it as the miners are not so likely to want to kill their own income by causing Bitcoin to fragment into several alts.

You are worried tho, it's all you ever talk about. Good...

Actually - no - I tend to post more about things like doing raw transactions (something you wouldn't even understand).

The worry is simply that the Bitcoin experiment will fail (but my own project will continue regardless of that outcome).

[CuntChocula]

.. Do we allow some sort of backdoor regulation that would increase its acceptance ...

Scaling has nothing to do with regulation. Nothing.

[cjmoles]

.. Do we allow some sort of backdoor regulation that would increase its acceptance ...

Scaling has nothing to do with regulation. Nothing.

So, if all the banks in the USA, due to some regulatory act, decided to include Bitcoin in their financial platform and everybody started using it at once, would bitcoin be robust enough to handle that traffic?

[CIYAM]

So, if all the banks in the USA, due to some regulatory act, decided to include Bitcoin in their financial platform and everybody started using it at once, would bitcoin be robust enough to handle that traffic?

Do you seriously think that this is going to occur?

Even if you increase the block size to 200MB it wouldn't be enough to handle all the txs in the USA (little own the rest of the world).

(so your scenario is not only somewhat ridiculous but practically not able to be handled by Bitcoin at all)

(and although I'm guessing you have no idea about it - the time taken to verify all the ECDSA signatures in said super-sized blocks would actually be more than 10 minutes)

[blunderer]

.. Do we allow some sort of backdoor regulation that would increase its acceptance ...

Scaling has nothing to do with regulation. Nothing.

So, if all the banks in the USA, due to some regulatory act, decided to include Bitcoin in their financial platform and everybody started using it at once, would bitcoin be robust enough to handle that traffic?

Of course not. But by your reasoning, scaling is also dependent on intergalactic relations. If Saurians from Andromeda decided to adopt Bitcoin, would Bitcoin be robust enough to handle that traffic?

[bargainbin]

...
I wouldn't worry too much about it as the miners are not so likely to want to kill their own income by causing Bitcoin to fragment into several alts.

You are worried tho, it's all you ever talk about. Good...

Actually - no - I tend to post more about things like doing raw transactions (something you wouldn't even understand).

The worry is simply that the Bitcoin experiment will fail (but my own project will continue regardless of that outcome).

Lol @ "something you wouldn't even understand." Do I rub in the fact you don't know the arcana of BTCeanie BTC BTCabies codebase?
No I do not.
Hell, you probably didn't even bother reading a line of it, did you? And yet I'm civil enough  to not rub your total ignorance in your face.
Nice diversion tho. You're scaird shitless.

[CIYAM]

Nice diversion tho. You're scaird shitless.

I see - so perhaps you'd care to take a challenge then.

[bargainbin]

Nice diversion tho. You're scaird shitless.

I see - so perhaps you'd care to take a challenge then.

Challenge? Do you even know how to code in BTC++?

[CIYAM]

Challenge? Do you even know how to code in BTC++?

How about we just make the challenge in terms of Bitcoin "raw transactions" (surely that should be trivial for you)?

I'll post a raw tx and you explain it to everyone to show that you can understand it.

[bargainbin]

Challenge? Do you even know how to code in BTC++?

How about we just make the challenge in terms of Bitcoin "raw transactions" (surely that should be trivial for you)?

I'll post a raw tx and you explain it to everyone to show that you can understand it.

How about you publicly admit you have no clue about coding in BTC++, hmm? That you still use x86 assembler HTML3 and Perl scripts C++?

[CIYAM]

Challenge? Do you even know how to code in BTC++?

How about we just make the challenge in terms of Bitcoin "raw transactions" (surely that should be trivial for you)?

I'll post a raw tx and you explain it to everyone to show that you can understand it.

How about you publicly admit you have no clue about coding in BTC++, hmm? That you still use x86 assembler HTML3 and Perl scripts C++?

I see - so you have already caved in and admitted you can't do Bitcoin raw txs.

Better luck next time troll!

[cjmoles]

So, if all the banks in the USA, due to some regulatory act, decided to include Bitcoin in their financial platform and everybody started using it at once, would bitcoin be robust enough to handle that traffic?

Do you seriously think that this is going to occur?

Even if you increase the block size to 200MB it wouldn't be enough to handle all the txs in the USA (little own the rest of the world).

(so your scenario is not only somewhat ridiculous but practically not able to be handled by Bitcoin at all)

(and although I'm guessing you have no idea about it - the time taken to verify all the ECDSA signatures in said super-sized blocks would actually be more than 10 minutes)

That was just an hyperbole to demonstrate my position and I realize it's exaggerated.  I was just trying to point out how scaling can be dependent on regulatory acts.  What if New York state started some sort of regulatory licensing requirements that allowed certain exchanges to be more bitcoin friendly?  Or, California, Florida, Texas?   See, it begs the question of how much and at what rate should the block size be increased?  It's a two way street: Is Bitcoin robust enough to be considered a viable option for big financial institutions?  And, is Bitcoin ready to allow the regulatory acts necessary to be included in that system?

We know that there are companies who are willing to concede some sort of regulation for a share in the US market....Who are they and what are they proposing in backroom negotiations?

[bargainbin]

Challenge? Do you even know how to code in BTC++?

How about we just make the challenge in terms of Bitcoin "raw transactions" (surely that should be trivial for you)?

I'll post a raw tx and you explain it to everyone to show that you can understand it.

How about you publicly admit you have no clue about coding in BTC++, hmm? That you still use x86 assembler HTML3 and Perl scripts C++?

I see - so you have already caved in and admitted you can't do Bitcoin raw txs.

Better luck next time troll!

Yeah, I'll tell you about row transactions after you answer my riddles three:

1. If you're so smart, what was Ty Warner eating when he solved the BTCeanie Propagation Problem?
Go!
No Googling!

[CIYAM]

We know that there are companies who are willing to concede some sort of regulation for a share in the US market....Who are they and what are they proposing in backroom negotiations?

You can't "regulate science" it works the way that it does (no amount of government agreements will make it quicker to verify ECDSA signatures).

[CIYAM]

Yeah, I'll tell you about row transactions after you answer my riddles three:

How cute - our little troll here can't even spell a simple three letter word (or perhaps you think transactions need to be propelled manually across water by people in boats).