Core have been derelict in their duties.

[Lauda]

i'll leave when i want to and not a second earlier, faggot.

This is how you lose every piece of credibility that you could ever have. Do you play some online games? This reminds me of those 'communities'.

That's why you left after you failed to subvert Bitcoin the last time.

Hey, did you not know that it is better to complain about Core constantly instead of doing anything beneficial in the meantime?

Week's left? Day's? I hope the code is ready .
I'm ready.

You should talk to Luke Jr. & co. This has nothing to do with Core.

[rizzlarolla]

It's time to fork to bigger blocks.

The DAO has just clarified my concerns with segwit. (they didn't really need clarifying, it's common sense)
Segwit is being released to a pre-planned schedule. to a deadline of congestion, high fees, growing adoption, aggravated miners.
Segwit needs more time. Lots more time.

Core won't entertain the idea of bigger blocks.
If the miners HF to bigger blocks, with an agreed (between themselves) 75% hash power, would it succeed?

Yes I think it would. (and of course the miners are aware of this)
Seems to me, users want more block space, miners want more users.

Would there be 2 chains, 2 bitcoin?
Only for a very short time.
That is how Bitcoin is designed, and intended.

The loosing (hash power) chain, in this instance Core 1 MB, will spiral down to junk status (or completely cease)
The loosing chain will be many times slower, or almost stopped, rendered unusable, it's value will fall to fractions.
Everyone will know it is the losing chain.
What will users do, use the losing, slow/stopped chain or the smooth, fast, valuable winning chain?
It is obvious.

There is no chance of the miners not being able to make this work.

[Carlton Banks]

*yawn*

You're in Imaginationland, as ever. The coup failed, and your retarded plan had a headstart. You really think you can revive the corpse of your garbage takeover plans with a spurious correlation with the latest alt-coin pump&dump?

As usual, you seem to underestimate the intelligence of the people you're trying to hoodwink, and overestimate your own credibility (which you somehow believe to be a substitute for factual information).

People that are actually invested in Bitcoin have a real incentive to check the alacrity of any claims that affect their investment for themselves. No self-respecting investor would do anything but, so do be quiet. It's not like you haven't already been told.

[hv_]

*yawn*

You're in Imaginationland, as ever. The coup failed, and your retarded plan had a headstart. You really think you can revive the corpse of your garbage takeover plans with a spurious correlation with the latest alt-coin pump&dump?

As usual, you seem to underestimate the intelligence of the people you're trying to hoodwink, and overestimate your own credibility (which you somehow believe to be a substitute for factual information).

People that are actually invested in Bitcoin have a real incentive to check the alacrity of any claims that affect their investment for themselves. No self-respecting investor would do anything but, so do be quiet. It's not like you haven't already been told.

Per definition BU must be THE bitcoin, correct?

1MB, SW, ... are altcoins then.

[Carlton Banks]

What? Is that supposed to mean something?

[hv_]

What? Is that supposed to mean something?

Sure. Get your brainbot on.

[Carlton Banks]

You appear to be trying to tell me that my description is tacitly advocating for BU as the one true Bitcoin implementation. You're delusional, on both counts. How on earth you could eke that interpretation out of what I said, I have no idea. Please don't explain, I suspect it involves enough mind bending mental gymnastics to induce the kind of laughter that could kill.

[hv_]

If you go back to the roots, the block size limitation can be concidered just beeing a temporary hack and was generated as a fork so 1mb is an altcoin, right?

[AliceGored]

If you go back to the roots, the block size limitation can be concidered just beeing a temporary hack and was generated as a fork so 1mb is an altcoin, right?

Close but no cigar, bud. Bitcoin is immutable. Its blocksize is 1MB, if you give in to a socialist mob... they will stop at nothing until they make your pre-ipo company worthless... serious shizz brah. Soft fork is love.

Hard fork is hate, becuase it uses fource.

[Yogafan00000]

Soft fork is love. Hard fork is hate

Heavy.

[Lauda]

It's time to fork to bigger blocks.

No.

The DAO has just clarified my concerns with segwit. (they didn't really need clarifying, it's common sense)

These is no correlation between DAO and Segwit.

Segwit is being released to a pre-planned schedule. to a deadline of congestion, high fees, growing adoption, aggravated miners. Segwit needs more time. Lots more time.

No. Nobody is pushing Segwit anywhere until people independently review it.

If the miners HF to bigger blocks, with an agreed (between themselves) 75% hash power, would it succeed?

That would be a horrible decision to make. Possibly even worse than the one that ETH is making right now. Might as well rename that altcoin to MinerCoin.

Close but no cigar, bud. Bitcoin is immutable. Its blocksize is 1MB, if you give in to a socialist mob... they will stop at nothing until they make your pre-ipo company worthless... serious shizz brah. Soft fork is love.
Hard fork is hate, becuase it uses fource.

Someone finally gets it.

[rizzlarolla]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1517883.msg15278600#msg15278600

Bullshit by people who don't know what they're talking about (again). A block size limit increase is no solution at all. It does not improve scalability, it does not do anything

Close but no cigar, bud. Bitcoin is immutable. Its blocksize is 1MB, if you give in to a socialist mob... they will stop at nothing until they make your pre-ipo company worthless... serious shizz brah. Soft fork is love.
Hard fork is hate, becuase it uses fource.

Someone finally gets it.

Lauda,

Anyone asking about a block size increase doesn't know what they are talking about. Lauda is more cleverer than them.
Obviously 2 mb is no solution at all. (wait for segwit 4mb with the 1.8mb effect)

Yet someone who cannot spell or nothing is a bitcoin coding sage?

[rizzlarolla]

From the roadmap,
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk
and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals
(such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will
be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and
understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the
risks of not deploying them. In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches
ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the
basic software engineering from being the limiting factor.

So core can't lose. Patches at the ready.

[Lauda]

Lauda,
Anyone asking about a block size increase doesn't know what they are talking about. Lauda is more cleverer than them.

No. Anyone spreading the false information that a block size limit increase improves scalability or is a solution of any sort does not know what they're talking about.

Obviously 2 mb is no solution at all. (wait for segwit 4mb with the 1.8mb effect)

Yes and yes.

Yet someone who cannot spell or nothing is a bitcoin coding sage?

Who's the "Bitcoin coding sage"?

[Quantus]

High fees = High security, Low fees = low security, its that simple.

If the block rewards + fees are < the potential reward of carrying out a 51% attack then the network will fail. If the Block rewards and fees are not enough of an incentive to "play by the rules" the network fails.
If the mining community collapses but the network still holds value the network fails.

I like the idea that if the mining community collapses leaving the network vulnerable we could switch out the hashing function used to confirm transactions.
However this could lead to a monopoly of new ASICs. (First mover advantage)

The only way to insure high fees and the security of the network is to have limited block space.

Freedom is not free and nether is bitcoin.


ELI5: If you want to protect $50 dollars you can securely store it in a $200 safe. If you want to store 10 million dollars you will need a more secure safe. The same is true for Bitcoin. But as our net value goes up our security (fees+block rewards) is going down. This is a serious issue.  

The overriding point is - PAY THE FUCKING FEE.

I have had ZERO problems, because I PAY THE FEE.

People who are so reluctant to shave a few fractions of a bitcoin off to pay a miner to include their transaction DESERVE to languish in a the mempool for hours. The network isn't free, you freeloading jerkwads. Until you can come up with a miner that runs on hugs and rainbows, it takes effort, electricity and bandwidth.

Every single complaint on a delayed transaction can be traced to the following:

1. Using coins that have a non-confirmed input

2. Not paying the appropriate fee to be included

3. Not paying attention to the client you are using - you should only use one that allows you to set the fee or has an automatic way to adjust the fee based on network conditions

Its just that easy, and yet, we still have these complaining idiots that can't wrap their head around including a minimal fee to get their transaction processed.

Idiotic.

+1

[rizzlarolla]

Lauda,
Anyone asking about a block size increase doesn't know what they are talking about. Lauda is more cleverer than them.

No. Anyone spreading the false information that a block size limit increase improves scalability or is a solution of any sort does not know what they're talking about.

Yes. Thats what I said you saiid. You cleverer than all of them people.

Obviously 2 mb is no solution at all. (wait for segwit 4mb with the 1.8mb effect)

Yes and yes.

Yes, I know you cant understand 1+1=2=twice as much=scaling=solution.

Yet someone who cannot spell or nothing is a bitcoin coding sage?

Who's the "Bitcoin coding sage"?

The one you said finally gets it.

[Lauda]

Yes. Thats what I said you saiid. You cleverer than all of them people.

Having more knowledge does not imply being more intelligent, but sure, I'll take that.

Yes, I know you cant understand 1+1=2=twice as much=scaling=solution.

That does not even make sense.

The one you said finally gets it.

He's not a "Bitcoin sage".
I don't see the point of these posts. You aren't making arguments of any kind. Read the post above yours.

[rizzlarolla]

High fees = High security, Low fees = low security, its that simple.

It really isn't that simple.

Every single complaint on a delayed transaction can be traced to the following:
2. Not paying the appropriate fee to be included

Not true. The recent backlog included recommended fee payers being over bid by new fee payers paying new (higher) recommended fees.
That group suffered at least a few hours delay after paying appropriate fees.

[rizzlarolla]

Yes. Thats what I said you saiid. You cleverer than all of them people.

Having more knowledge does not imply being more intelligent, but sure, I'll take that.

You don't have that knowledge.

Yes, I know you cant understand 1+1=2=twice as much=scaling=solution.

That does not even make sense.

I know. It is like advanced mathematics.

The one you said finally gets it.

He's not a "Bitcoin sage".
I don't see the point of these posts. You aren't making arguments of any kind. Read the post above yours.

Yet you have to but in? I read the post already.

[Lauda]

You don't have that knowledge.

Of course I do, but that is not even relevant.

I know. It is like advanced mathematics.

Correction: Wasting time with useless nonsense.
Now to direct back to the thread: "Core have been derelict in their duties". This is a false statement especially if you consider the Classic 0.12.1 implementation, or should I say anti-implementation? The developers just removed the warnings of the features that it does not have. It was discussed before and now Maxwell has made another post about it. How many (non-destructive features) has Classic developed in comparison to Core?