Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already.

[Lauda]

I was specifically responding to you saying that Bitcoin has the most "advanced and developed protocol".

Thank you for explaining that. What you've described is the 'cherry picking fallacy'.

I find it revealing you are not invested in Bitcoin, people can make their own judgement in that regard. For the record I have a bigger share in Bitcoin compared to any other altcoin, including Dash.

That's why you're heavily biased. Just the fact that you aren't willing to admit this to yourself, makes most of your arguments plummet into water.

I understand now that most of what you are doing is just attacking my character at this point, it should be obvious to everyone here that I have remained civil, unlike yourself I do not engage in that type of ad hominen and other type of fallacious argumentation since it is not productive towards rational discussion.

Not an argument. Stop crying out to "ad hominem" to defend flawed positioning and argumentation.

You've wrote an useless wall of text that doesn't matter at all. We all know that ETH's promise that "Code is law" was a pure lie. The primary thing that matters is the DTV factor, i.e. "Distance-to-Vitalik".

Not an argument.

This is very well an argument as it describes the lies that the shitcoin was built upon, which later turned into a mutable chain.

To be clear you claimed to know as a fact that Monero would be made illegal if there was greater adoption, you further went on to claim that you had insider knowledge that this was true, first of all your insider knowledge can not be considered as a fact by other people because it can not be publicly verified.

I did claim it was going to be illegal. I didn't specify where. I didn't make any claims about insider knowledge, that's what you concluded out of my statement. "It's confidential" may mean a lot of things.

You also say that splitting the Bitcoin blockchain should be considered a positive thing? That is absurd. I do not know if you are serious or you are trolling.

Objectively speaking, I can only put someone like that in one (or more) of the following groups:
1) Trolling.
2) Paid shill.
3) Idiot.
Hint: This isn't ad hominem, nor character assassination. This is an objective evaluating of a viewpoint which is not rational.

[Gahs]

And if Monero is going to be called illegal, who's going to label it "illegal"... the authorities?

They have a hard time accepting bitcoin as money not to talk of an altcoin.

[illyiller]

The price is besides the point here. Thing thing to learn from the Ethereum hard fork is that there were factors that they did not anticipate that would happen. Instead of doing only the hard fork, the original chain lived on and became a competing chain. The effect of it on Ethereum may be minimal because the network is quite young. So yes they have that luxury to make drastic measures. My question is how will this affect a more established blockchain like Bitcoin?

It's called freedom, friendo. A fork, it's the open source way.

It's why little Johnny is better off if Mommy and Daddy (who hate and abuse each other, in front of the investors kids), find separate houses.

Then why don't you fork? Why do people like you just constantly talk about forking, rather than following through? Is it because most of the technical community isn't interested? Is it because you are waiting for miners to pressure opposing users with their hash rate?

I don't see why you guys can't just fork, if not for fear that no one would support your chain. Go ahead and fork; it's the open source way. I'm guessing you won't get very far.

[dumbfbrankings]

The price is besides the point here. Thing thing to learn from the Ethereum hard fork is that there were factors that they did not anticipate that would happen. Instead of doing only the hard fork, the original chain lived on and became a competing chain. The effect of it on Ethereum may be minimal because the network is quite young. So yes they have that luxury to make drastic measures. My question is how will this affect a more established blockchain like Bitcoin?

It's called freedom, friendo. A fork, it's the open source way.

It's why little Johnny is better off if Mommy and Daddy (who hate and abuse each other, in front of the investors kids), find separate houses.

Then why don't you fork? Why do people like you just constantly talk about forking, rather than following through? Is it because most of the technical community isn't interested? Is it because you are waiting for miners to pressure opposing users with their hash rate?

I don't see why you guys can't just fork, if not for fear that no one would support your chain. Go ahead and fork; it's the open source way. I'm guessing you won't get very far.

Patience young padawan... the market will serve as the orchestra for this dance... follow its lead. Or don't... and dance to your own drummer. Freedom...

[illyiller]

The price is besides the point here. Thing thing to learn from the Ethereum hard fork is that there were factors that they did not anticipate that would happen. Instead of doing only the hard fork, the original chain lived on and became a competing chain. The effect of it on Ethereum may be minimal because the network is quite young. So yes they have that luxury to make drastic measures. My question is how will this affect a more established blockchain like Bitcoin?

It's called freedom, friendo. A fork, it's the open source way.

It's why little Johnny is better off if Mommy and Daddy (who hate and abuse each other, in front of the investors kids), find separate houses.

Then why don't you fork? Why do people like you just constantly talk about forking, rather than following through? Is it because most of the technical community isn't interested? Is it because you are waiting for miners to pressure opposing users with their hash rate?

I don't see why you guys can't just fork, if not for fear that no one would support your chain. Go ahead and fork; it's the open source way. I'm guessing you won't get very far.

Patience young padawan... the market will serve as the orchestra for this dance... follow its lead. Or don't... and dance to your own drummer. Freedom...

It sounds like you are just hand-waving, repeating tired cliches and really saying nothing at all. This seems like a theme with the pro-fork crowd. "The market this, the market that..." But the market seems generally opposed to a hard fork---that's the overall sentiment on social media, the forum, slacks and mailing lists....backed by nodes and miners.

Perhaps it's more important to note that the market can't change the rules of the Bitcoin network---it can only switch to a new network with new tokens. In the process, you'll probably split the community into multiple blockchains.

A lot of people (like me) oppose hard forks on principle in the context of a consensus ledger. You're not going to convince us. You can push bandwagon propaganda about the inevitable victory of your chain if you want (that's the most common approach)....but you will split the network and people like me will make sure you won't have a clean hard fork.

[dumbfbrankings]

... people like me will make sure you won't have a clean hard fork.

Gasp! Will you dump your pre-fork sig spam earnings on the on-chain scaling side of teh fork?! Pls, no!

[franky1]

The price is besides the point here. Thing thing to learn from the Ethereum hard fork is that there were factors that they did not anticipate that would happen. Instead of doing only the hard fork, the original chain lived on and became a competing chain. The effect of it on Ethereum may be minimal because the network is quite young. So yes they have that luxury to make drastic measures. My question is how will this affect a more established blockchain like Bitcoin?

It's called freedom, friendo. A fork, it's the open source way.

It's why little Johnny is better off if Mommy and Daddy (who hate and abuse each other, in front of the investors kids), find separate houses.

Then why don't you fork? Why do people like you just constantly talk about forking, rather than following through? Is it because most of the technical community isn't interested? Is it because you are waiting for miners to pressure opposing users with their hash rate?

I don't see why you guys can't just fork, if not for fear that no one would support your chain. Go ahead and fork; it's the open source way. I'm guessing you won't get very far.

controversial forks (intentional splits) are not good.

that is why THE COMMUNITY wants a CONSENSUAL FORK meaning the majority continue on a single path, but have the upgraded features, higher capacity buffer, where the orphaning mechanism built into bitcoin take care of the minority.

again not an intentional split (EG ethereum '--oppose-dao-fork')
but a true consensual upgrade of features and buffer, based on majority consent

the problem is that core fanboys dont want a true consensual fork.. they have done all they can to give core power and control. to veto out any plan that involves a consensual fork..
segwit does not require consent(no nodes need to upgrade to consent to the change) and some people are mixing up the metaphors to think that the only options are controversial split or no consent.. by calling the no consent option, consensus..(facepalm)

i just wish the core fanboys dont REKT a core team release of 2mb
so then EVERYONE has the freedom of choosing, and that choice does not have to be a social choice of fanboys of certain groups.. but instead based on features they want the chain to continue on in one direction using.
because those in he core fanclub can remain with core because there is a core version of 2mb buffer

again by having a core version. it stops the social war and brings the debate back to basics of features.

wake up people. if your a core lover. by shouting hate about core releasing a true consensual fork version because you prefer the controlled no-consent path. you are truly revealing that you dont want decentralization. and it cant be hidden by "no i love core", because the code would be a core release.

but lets watch the replies from some who will shout hate speach of decentralization and show obvious bias to want core of no-consent changes. dominance and centralized control.
lets watch who REKTs people like luke JR who will release a core code implementation of 2mb buffer.

in short if you want decentralization and love core. let luke (as part of core) release the implementation.
in short if you want centralization and love cores no-consent corporate policy. reply with your hatred of decentralization

[illyiller]

... people like me will make sure you won't have a clean hard fork.

Gasp! Will you dump your pre-fork sig spam earnings on the on-chain scaling side of teh fork?! Pls, no!

Interesting. Your last few one-line posts seem a lot more spammy than anything I've written. You haven't contributed a thing to this thread. And to be clear: Segwit contributes to on-chain scaling. For instance, it fixes perverse UTXO incentives which cause longterm UTXO bloat. It also increases capacity in a backward compatible way, to mitigate the externalities of increased throughput on nodes. This is what scaling is about: optimizing the protocol to mitigate the effects of throughput, maintaining the system's robustness. You are just talking about increasing throughput with zero scaling mechanisms. That's not scaling at all.

More than that, Segwit enables significant on-chain scaling mechanisms like aggregate signatures, which can cut down signature size by 30-40%. That's on-chain capacity gained. There's lots of little things I've read are in the works to improve verification and syncing times and mitigate bandwidth spikes and network latencies---all extremely important because scalability entails retaining node and miner decentralization in the context of increased growth. Lightning transactions (aside from the 2-of-2 multisig transactions that open/close channels) are indeed off-chain---what's the problem? Every transaction is  trustless and can be broadcast to the blockchain.

[illyiller]

The price is besides the point here. Thing thing to learn from the Ethereum hard fork is that there were factors that they did not anticipate that would happen. Instead of doing only the hard fork, the original chain lived on and became a competing chain. The effect of it on Ethereum may be minimal because the network is quite young. So yes they have that luxury to make drastic measures. My question is how will this affect a more established blockchain like Bitcoin?

It's called freedom, friendo. A fork, it's the open source way.

It's why little Johnny is better off if Mommy and Daddy (who hate and abuse each other, in front of the investors kids), find separate houses.

Then why don't you fork? Why do people like you just constantly talk about forking, rather than following through? Is it because most of the technical community isn't interested? Is it because you are waiting for miners to pressure opposing users with their hash rate?

I don't see why you guys can't just fork, if not for fear that no one would support your chain. Go ahead and fork; it's the open source way. I'm guessing you won't get very far.

controversial forks (intentional splits) are not good.

that is why THE COMMUNITY wants a CONSENSUAL FORK meaning the majority continue on a single path, but have the upgraded features, higher capacity buffer, where the orphaning mechanism built into bitcoin take care of the minority.

You should look up the meaning of "consensual"....it relates to "consent". The "majority" as you say cannot "consent" for the minority. Consensual means every user agrees, not tyranny of the majority. Orphaning is irrelevant here---why would you even mention it? If a hard fork gains the majority of hash rate, the minority just stays on the weaker chain. They can't even see the "longer chain" because it's invalid according to their consensus rules. They just ignore it. Two separate blockchains. This is why there is no such thing as a "majority rule consensual hard fork".

And what makes you think a hard fork won't be controversial?

in short if you want decentralization and love core. let luke (as part of core) release the implementation.
in short if you want centralization and love cores no-consent corporate policy. reply with your hatred of decentralization

Nobody is going to stop Luke from submitting a pull request. Whether it's merged is another matter. And whether users support it is another matter.

...And now if we don't support some hard fork, we hate decentralization, right...

[Lauda]

the problem is that core fanboys dont want a true consensual fork.. they have done all they can to give core power and control. to veto out any plan that involves a consensual fork..

This doesn't make sense at all. A HF proposed by Core would still make them retain "power and control" that you're preaching about . Note: I'm not saying I agree with what you're saying, just that it doesn't make sense).

i just wish the core fanboys dont REKT a core team release of 2mb

As soon as the security issues of that are mitigated, then I don't see a (big) problem with it.

lets watch who REKTs people like luke JR who will release a core code implementation of 2mb buffer.

I'm actually quite curious and waiting for them to release a proposal and implementation. It's taking too long in any case.

[illyiller]

I'm actually quite curious and waiting for them to release a proposal and implementation. It's taking too long in any case.

My impression from lurking in IRC and the Slack over the past few months is that there's no consensus around a hard fork. I also think there was somewhat of a mutual understanding among most people involved in the July SF dev/miner meeting....that in the wake of Ethereum's failed hard fork, that a hard fork is more dangerous than most had expected. It's on the back burner. Way back. I don't think the timing of the deadline for that proposal, and the SF meeting were coincidental.

[Lauda]

My impression from lurking in IRC and the Slack over the past few months is that there's no consensus around a hard fork. I also think there was somewhat of a mutual understanding among most people involved in the July SF dev/miner meeting....that in the wake of Ethereum's failed hard fork, that a hard fork is more dangerous than most had expected. It's on the back burner. Way back. I don't think the timing of the deadline for that proposal, and the SF meeting were coincidental.

I thought that someone may associate my post with that July/August deadline (or whatever exact the deadline of a meeting was supposed to be. However, that's not what I meant and not what I'm concerned about. AFAIK luke-jr said that they would still write and submit both  a proposal and the code. I'm interested in the specifics of the proposal (not the deadline/activation mechanism) as I doubt it will be solely a block size increase (which would make that particular HF very inefficient; there are desirable changes that could be done along with it).

[Carlton Banks]

It's called freedom, friendo. A fork, it's the open source way.

It's why little Johnny is better off if Mommy and Daddy (who hate and abuse each other, in front of the investors kids), find separate houses.

But you're not advocating finding separate houses, you're casually arguing for the right to evict the legitimate owners and burn the house down.

Freedom does include the option of freedom to be an abusive, destructive dickwad. But all freely chosen acts have consequences, good bad and indifferent. Trying to pretend that all free choices are magically the best choice is naive and moronic

[VeritasSapere]

No one is to blame or should be. What has recently happened to Ethereum is not a bad outcome, splitting Bitcoin in the same manner should be considered a positive thing. Like dumbfbrankings just said it represents freedom, the analogy of a couple breaking up and finding separate houses is indeed a good analogy.

If you think that the split in Ethereum's chain was not a bad outcome then you are gravely mistaken. Who would want for it to split like that resulting with another chain that is now competing with your own. You also say that splitting the Bitcoin blockchain should be considered a positive thing? That is absurd. I do not know if you are serious or you are trolling.

There is more at stake here because the whole Bitcoin economy is relying on the stability of the network to keep it going. If they do a hard fork and then the network splits then they are risking destroying that economy and the value of the coin itself. I am certain a lot of people WILL look for someone to blame.

Can you explain to me why the split in Ethereums chain was such a bad outcome? I am invested in Ethereum myself and from my perspective everything seems just fine. Do you think it would be better if either side did not get their way and would therefore be "forced" to leave Ethereum or stay on a chain they do not agree with? Splitting seems like a better solution since all parties can be happy, both ETH and ETC supporters get to have the chain that they want. This seems much better then either side being able to dictate what the rules of the protocol should be for both sides. This is and should primarily be about freedom first.

No, that's definitely a false statement. Bitcoin has the most advanced and developed protocol. Most of the shitcoins haven't even patched up the security exploits up until the latest versions.

I find this statement rather amusing, I hope you do realize that a clone of Bitcoin is considered not be innovative at all within the altcoin world, that should tell you something, any altcoin that is worth anything improves on Bitcoin in some way.

Pure strawman. I was talking about security exploits, not specific features that some altcoins may or may not have.

Not a strawman, you where not that specific in your statement, furthermore such a hand waving statement that most "shitcoins" have lots of security exploits does not carry much weight.

It's a pure strawman. Don't blame me for your inadequate research into the development of those altcoins. None of them comes close to Bitcoin in terms of security (both code and network security).

I was specifically responding to you saying that Bitcoin has the most "advanced and developed protocol". I responded by saying that some altcoins are more innovative then Bitcoin, this is a valid response and it is certainly not a straw man argument.

Thank you for explaining that. What you've described is the 'cherry picking fallacy'.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Shifting the goal post I see, explain to me how am I cherry picking? As far as this line of argumentation is involved I did respond directly to a part of your statement, which was not directly linked to the second part of your sentence, advancement and development are not necessarily depended upon the security patches from the latest version of Bitcoin, since in the example I used, Monero and Ethereum are not even based on the Bitcoin code at all, therefore I would think that the latest security patches from Bitcoin are actually irrelevant.

I find it revealing you are not invested in Bitcoin, people can make their own judgement in that regard. For the record I have a bigger share in Bitcoin compared to any other altcoin, including Dash.

That's why you're heavily biased. Just the fact that you aren't willing to admit this to yourself, makes most of your arguments plummet into water.

Because I am invested in Bitcoin none of my arguments are therefore valid? This is a strange thing to say to me, if anything being invested in Bitcoin aligns my incentives to do what is best for Bitcoin.

I understand now that most of what you are doing is just attacking my character at this point, it should be obvious to everyone here that I have remained civil, unlike yourself I do not engage in that type of ad hominen and other type of fallacious argumentation since it is not productive towards rational discussion.

Not an argument. Stop crying out to "ad hominem" to defend flawed positioning and argumentation.

Maybe instead of constantly attacking with me ad hominem you should argue rationally with me and not resort to such manipulative tactics.

You've wrote an useless wall of text that doesn't matter at all. We all know that ETH's promise that "Code is law" was a pure lie. The primary thing that matters is the DTV factor, i.e. "Distance-to-Vitalik".

Not an argument.

This is very well an argument as it describes the lies that the shitcoin was built upon, which later turned into a mutable chain.

So to be clear, you think that is a counter argument to this:

This statement is just not true, at least not in the way that I suspect you mean it. I supported the ETH hard fork, and I am actually more bullish now then I was before on ETH. First of all in terms of its "immutability" and censorship resistance it is no different to Bitcoin in terms of normal blockchain transactions, it is equally immutable and censorship resistant, it is equally difficult to roll back transactions on Bitcoin compared to Ethereum, a state change to the contract layer is different to actually rolling back transactions on the blockchain, I have noticed many Bitcoiners equate these two things as if they where the same thing, it is not, this is mostly likely because they are thinking of this event in Bitcoin terms when there are some very important differences in the design. It was only possible to return peoples funds because it existed within a smart contract, something that would not even be possible within Bitcoin.

Blockchains are not protected by precedent or social convention like you might think but hard cryptography and game theory mechanics. In regards to the transactional immutability Bitcoin and Ethereum are mostly identical, it is practically impossible to roll back blocks and therefore also transactions. This is not what happened with the Ethereum hard fork, it involved a state change on the smart contract layer through the "consensus" mechanism. I consider any change to the rules of the protocol legitimate if it is brought about in such a way.

I understand that this is a major difference in our theories on how the governance of these blockchain systems function, I perceive it to be much more of a social construct, a tool for human beings to govern themselves and each other in a better way. It is a good thing that the code can change through this governance mechanisms, "immutability" in the literal sense of the word is not something we should aim for, if something goes wrong the majority of people should be able change the rules of the system, ideas and people also evolve, these blockchain networks need to evolve with our civilizations.

It is wrong to describe the DOA fork as a bail out, since there are no extra taxes, inflation or "haircuts" like there would be in a bailout like we understand it today. Rather I think the analogy of a bank robbery is much better, we are simply intervening, preventing the bank robbery from taking place. I think this is perfectly justifiable. Before you say "code is law" and smart contracts have no value if they are not "immutable". The opposite is actually true, there is a good reason why all law systems today are non-deterministic, it is the intent of the law here that counts, not the letter of the law.

At the same time even though I do not agree with the reosons for Ethereums Classics existence, I do absolutely respect their right to self determination and at the same time they have given Bitcoin a perfectly viable option that we could follow, splitting the chain, resolving this ideological debate.

So according to you, your counter argument to what I have said here is that Ethereum is a mutable shit coin and that all that matters is "Distance-to-Vitalik". If that is your complete argument we can leave it at that, people reading this can decide for themselves what they think is more correct.

This discussion started off by me saying that both of our positions are just subjective opinions because they are based on ideology, but I suppose that you are still maintaining the position that what you are saying is a objective fact, I obviously still think that is a irrational position to take.

To be clear you claimed to know as a fact that Monero would be made illegal if there was greater adoption, you further went on to claim that you had insider knowledge that this was true, first of all your insider knowledge can not be considered as a fact by other people because it can not be publicly verified.

I did claim it was going to be illegal. I didn't specify where. I didn't make any claims about insider knowledge, that's what you concluded out of my statement. "It's confidential" may mean a lot of things.

You also say that splitting the Bitcoin blockchain should be considered a positive thing? That is absurd. I do not know if you are serious or you are trolling.

Objectively speaking, I can only put someone like that in one (or more) of the following groups:
1) Trolling.
2) Paid shill.
3) Idiot.
Hint: This isn't ad hominem, nor character assassination. This is an objective evaluating of a viewpoint which is not rational.

You are saying that I must be either a troll, shill or an idiot. And you are claiming that this is not ad hominem or character assassination and that you are being completely objective and rational by saying this. Instead of proving my irrationality through argumentation and exposing fallacy you are saying that my position is not rational, without even qualifying your position. I hope in the future you will see how twisted you have become Laura, this is literally double speak.

[Lauda]

Because I am invested in Bitcoin none of my arguments are therefore valid? This is a strange thing to say to me, if anything being invested in Bitcoin aligns my incentives to do what is best for Bitcoin.

Invested in altcoins -> preaching in favor of altcoins due to bias.

Maybe instead of constantly attacking with me ad hominem you should argue rationally with me and not resort to such manipulative tactics.

If I call you an idiot somewhere in between, that isn't ad hominem as I'm not trying to undermine your argument by doing so. In other words, there have been no ad hominem attacks.

So according to you, your counter argument to what I have said here is that Ethereum is a mutable shit coin and that all that matters is "Distance-to-Vitalik". If that is your complete argument we can leave it at that, people reading this can decide for themselves what they think is more correct.

Correct, because what you wrote is such a big piece of crap that doesn't even need argumentation. People would just end up wasting their time reading it, like I did.

You are saying that I must be either a troll, shill or an idiot. And you are claiming that this is not ad hominem or character assassination and that you are being completely objective and rational by saying this.

That is correct. I have not undermined any arguments, nor specified a singular person to be in any of those groups. My assessment may be flawed if I've missed some potential groups (which I'm sure I have).
Fun how this drifts away from the original topic and forking, because your position is inherently wrong due to a number of factors that are not being considered. BU assumes everything is going to be a fairy tale and everyone is going to create 16 MB worth of nice, and sigop friendly transactions.

[franky1]

BU assumes everything is going to be a fairy tale and everyone is going to create 16 MB worth of nice, and sigop friendly transactions.

BU is user requested scaling.. its not like it actually will contain 16mb of data tomorrow.. miners have their own preferences and will grow incrementally.
EG bitcoin is only 1mb.. even in 2016 you yourself bleeted that blocks were generally not yet at 1mb and there was still room for growth
EG bitcoin is only 1mb.. even in 2013 you yourself know blocks were only 500k full
meaning even with 1mb rule blocks were not 1mb..

so a 16mb, 8mb, 2mb rule does not immediately make every block that size. its just a BUFFER..
EG you can have 64gb of ram but never be at full memory usage
EG you can have 3tb hard drive but never fill it.. but atleast relax you have more room then you need for the future

but speeking of the future.. lets look to the past
guess your too young to remember 16 years ago when hard drives were a max of ~4gb and most users though that 1.4mb of reusable transportable data was great and more than we needed

also you mention sigops.. werent you the one crying that transaction bloat was straining bitcoin due to so many sigops.(u know the 11minute validation time doomsday you bleeted out like a sheep)

so tell me.. what REAL WORLD scenario can you see that a user needs to use XXXXX sigops in one go.
so tell me.. what REAL WORLD scenario can you see that a user needs to use XXXXX sigops in one go instead of batches
so tell me.. what REAL WORLD scenario can you tell me would be a reasonable sigop limit.

EG using sigop rules to limit spam instead of expensive fee wars is actually good for bitcoin and good for users.

for future reference:
remember the hypocrisy of you also favouring a system of discounted transaction costs via segwit and no sigops, which will result in more spam when you cry about spam in the future..

edit:
wait i see the plan now that you hope validation times are no issue you are happy for spammers to spam to cause a fee war.. hmm i wonder why. hmm..
anyway i digressed. so back to what i really want to know from you..

so tell me.. what REAL WORLD scenario can you see that a user needs to use XXXXX sigops in one go.
more precisely.. what REAL WORLD scenario can you see that a user needs to use XXXXX sigops in one go instead of batches(separate tx's)
so tell me.. what REAL WORLD scenario can you tell me would be a reasonable sigop limit.

[Lauda]

BU is user requested scaling.. its not like it actually will contain 16mb of data tomorrow.. miners have their own preferences and will grow incrementally.
EG bitcoin is only 1mb.. even in 2016 you yourself bleeted that blocks were generally not yet at 1mb and there was still room for growth
EG bitcoin is only 1mb.. even in 2013 you yourself know blocks were only 500k full
meaning even with 1mb rule blocks were not 1mb..

You and people like you are really gullible. Nobody is talking about "16 MB real-world" data tomorrow. I'm talking about malicious data that could infinitely DOS the network. The 1 MB block size limit prevents this, a 16 MB block size limit does not.

[franky1]

BU is user requested scaling.. its not like it actually will contain 16mb of data tomorrow.. miners have their own preferences and will grow incrementally.
EG bitcoin is only 1mb.. even in 2016 you yourself bleeted that blocks were generally not yet at 1mb and there was still room for growth
EG bitcoin is only 1mb.. even in 2013 you yourself know blocks were only 500k full
meaning even with 1mb rule blocks were not 1mb..

You and people like you are really gullible. Nobody is talking about "16 MB real-world" data tomorrow. I'm talking about malicious data that could ifinitely DOS the network. The 1 MB block size limit prevents this, a 16 MB block size limit does not.

lol.. you have no clue... time you done your own bench tests. oh heres a hint, when u go on IRC to be spoonfed from ur pals.. ask them to link you real info.. i know u love asking people to link info.. and because its coming from your friends you wont argue and put your fingers in your ear when you get it

[Lauda]

lol.. you have no clue... time you done your own bench tests. oh heres a hint, when u go on IRC to be spoonfed from ur pals.. ask them to link you real info.. i know u love asking people to link info.. and because its coming from your friends you wont argue and put your fingers in your ear when you get it

You haven't made an argument here. Stop trolling.

[VeritasSapere]

The price is besides the point here. Thing thing to learn from the Ethereum hard fork is that there were factors that they did not anticipate that would happen. Instead of doing only the hard fork, the original chain lived on and became a competing chain. The effect of it on Ethereum may be minimal because the network is quite young. So yes they have that luxury to make drastic measures. My question is how will this affect a more established blockchain like Bitcoin?

It's called freedom, friendo. A fork, it's the open source way.

It's why little Johnny is better off if Mommy and Daddy (who hate and abuse each other, in front of the investors kids), find separate houses.

Then why don't you fork? Why do people like you just constantly talk about forking, rather than following through? Is it because most of the technical community isn't interested? Is it because you are waiting for miners to pressure opposing users with their hash rate?

I don't see why you guys can't just fork, if not for fear that no one would support your chain. Go ahead and fork; it's the open source way. I'm guessing you won't get very far.

Patience young padawan... the market will serve as the orchestra for this dance... follow its lead. Or don't... and dance to your own drummer. Freedom...

It sounds like you are just hand-waving, repeating tired cliches and really saying nothing at all. This seems like a theme with the pro-fork crowd. "The market this, the market that..."

Yes I think it is a important difference between our ideologies, we place more weight on the market and the forces of competition, which relates directly to the blocksize limit.

But the market seems generally opposed to a hard fork---that's the overall sentiment on social media, the forum, slacks and mailing lists....backed by nodes and miners.

The only way the "market" can truly express itself right now is by moving away from Bitcoin, that is exactly what is happening right now, Bitcoin is losing market share. Splitting the blockchain actually gives the market a much clearer choice, when that happens we will see where the value will flow.

Perhaps it's more important to note that the market can't change the rules of the Bitcoin network---it can only switch to a new network with new tokens. In the process, you'll probably split the community into multiple blockchains.

The market can change the rules of the Bitcoin network, that is one of its fundamental and most important principles, I have already explained why I think that is the case in this thread.

A lot of people (like me) oppose hard forks on principle in the context of a consensus ledger. You're not going to convince us.

We do not need to convince you, you can not stop the hard fork from happening regardless of what you think. You are correct in saying that because of people like you a hard fork by a non Core client would guarantee that the chain will split, I entirely agree, and since nobody can stop a minority from initiating a hard fork the split has become inevitable.

You can push bandwagon propaganda about the inevitable victory of your chain if you want (that's the most common approach)....

If you read closely what I have been saying in this thread you would know that I accept and embrace the concept of splitting the chain, instead of promoting the victory of one side over the other.

but you will split the network and people like me will make sure you won't have a clean hard fork.

Which is exactly why I think a split has become inevitable, I can respect your position, how come you can not respect mine? We can just go our separate ways, in peace and tolerance.

There is nothing you can do to stop the split from happening except for compromise. You keep asking how come we have waited this long to initiate the hard fork? It is out of courtesy and respect, and it is in the hope that we can find compromise and agreement so that we can move forward together as one, splitting the chain is a measure of last resort. But it has come to this, we have radically different ideologies on what we think Bitcoin is and what it should become. Therefore it does make sense for these different groups of people to go their separate ways.