Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[jbreher]

does a 2mb blocks increase + and long term modest increases in the future effectively make LN obsolete..? ~tia

I wouldn't say so, no. LN is complementary to blocksize increase. Of course, it is a different transaction model and a different security model. We won't know for some time all the implications of these aspects. But no - there seem to be clear valid use cases for off-chain transactions through payment channels.

[Gab0]

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

You have your large blocks in BCH. And according to your previous post, BCH is the one true Bitcoin.

So. what. the. fk. is. the. problem. ?

I was just correcting a flawed assertion by JJG. After the predictable pile-on, this is where we arrive. The only _problem_ per se was the insistence that larger blocks serve no purpose - where demonstrably, they do.

Great. So you have your coin BCH, which you say is the one. You have your 8MB large blocks.  And you have your little tribe of supporters. You should be happy. But for some reason you aren't. Because you keep coming back, trying to argue for more changes to Bitcoin. Trying to change Bitcoin into BCH.

So again. what . the fk. is. YOUR. problem?

Can i ask you what is your problem?
This is an open forum, a place to discuss and interchange different opinions.
You are not even remotely the owner of the truth, and your opinion is one among many very different.
It is by your attitude, your constant lack of reason and good constumbres to exchange opinions, that I consider a troll.

[notme]

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

You have your large blocks in BCH. And according to your previous post, BCH is the one true Bitcoin.

So. what. the. fk. is. the. problem. ?

I was just correcting a flawed assertion by JJG. After the predictable pile-on, this is where we arrive. The only _problem_ per se was the insistence that larger blocks serve no purpose - where demonstrably, they do.

Great. So you have your coin BCH, which you say is the one. You have your 8MB large blocks.  And you have your little tribe of supporters. You should be happy. But for some reason you aren't. Because you keep coming back, trying to argue for more changes to Bitcoin. Trying to change Bitcoin into BCH.

So again. what . the fk. is. YOUR. problem?

Can i ask you what is your problem?
This is an open forum, a place to discuss and interchange different opinions.
You are not even remotely the owner of the truth, and your opinion is one among many very different.
It is by your attitude, your constant lack of reason and good constumbres to exchange opinions, that I consider a troll.

He got lucky and made some money on the internet.  Now he thinks he's a fucking genius.  It's a common problem around here.

[jbreher]

This is Bitcoin sub forum, not a BCH sub forum. You have the coin with big blocks that you so desperately wanted, and you got it. So again, why do you repeatedly keep coming back here? Why aren't you off with your little tribe?

Oh, I know why. Because you are a troll. Because only a troll keeps coming back to a sub forum thread after they supposedly got what they wanted. Quit trying to 'save' anyone here from anything. We don't need saving. Everyone here knows what Bitcoin is and what BCH is. And people here want to discuss Bitcoin, not BCH. Nor want to discuss how to turn Bitcoin in BCH.

I am discussing Bitcoin. I am discussing Bitcoin Segwit Core, Bitcoin Segwit 2M, and Bitcoin Cash.

Life is a game of probabilities. While I am confident that BCH will eventually be recognized as the One True Bitcoin, only a fool would ascribe 100% to any such outcome. As such, if there is a case for improving Segwit, I am going to make it.

I am decidedly not a troll. Are you a troll? Is Segwit Core 'what you wanted'? Then why do you return to this sub forum?

Yes, we all (most) probably know what Bitcoin is. I doubt, however, that everyone here was complicit with you appointing yourself arbiter as to what may or may not witness being discussed here.

Regardless, it is quite clear that at least some have not yet heard the fact that onboarding the world will take decades at 1MB, and that neither segwit nor LN ameliorates this issue, while block size increases do. If you really want to wallow in willful ignorance, feel free to ignore me. I'd be a little sad -- I seem to remember us having cordial conversations in the past -- but I'd live.

[Torque]

He got lucky and made some money on the internet.  Now he thinks he's a fucking genius.  It's a common problem around here.

No, apparently the real geniuses are the accounts on this thread that want to convince everyone that that Bitcoin core developers are completely and woefully incompetent, that Bitcoin still sucks and if it just had bigger blocks it would take over the whole fkn world.

See BCH and their dev team for complete fail.

[JayJuanGee]

Currently it would take over 30 years to send each person on earth a single Bitcoin transaction. Think about that.

I doubt that it is worthy of very much thought, and I doubt that the facts are even accurate... especially once we et a bit more lightning network tools into place...

No. Lightning does absolutely nothing to alleviate the issue I raise.

Incidentally: you doubt my facts are accurate? That's supposed to convince anyone? What are you - eight years old? They're accurate within engineering tolerance. Run 'em yourself and tell me what sort of numbers you come up with. Only then will we have a basis for communication.

Lightning does nothing to alleviate that.
Segwit does nothing to alleviate that.
Schnorr sigs does nothing to alleviate that.

Your saying it does not make it true, either.

Irrelevant. It is true whether or not I say it.

The only metric that matters in this is transaction throughput - pure and simple. To a first order approximation (i.e. with already minimal-size transactions), this is directly and linearly proportional to block size.

Yeah, you talk in a lot of hypotheticals rather than looking at the actual transaction on the blockchain.

No. I speak of facts. If you wish to argue that my purported facts are incorrect, then provide evidence. If you wish to argue that my reasoning is flawed, then provide evidence. But jamming your fingers in your ears and shouting 'I can't hear you' doesn't make you right, it just makes you deaf to reason.

Makes you look stupid, too.

Seems to me that you are the one that has the burden of proof and the burden of production because you are proposing that there is something that needs to be changed - eg increase the blocksize to 2mb or greater.

I Maintaining the status quo and saying that there is no problem (which is largely my position) and asserting incremental changes within existing system (which is largely my position) requires no proof or logic because it is already the system that exists.

Your fancy attempts to assert a bunch of nonsense without proof, while asserting that you have proof, remains the part that needs both evidence and logic....

And the first evidence and logic that you need to show is that there is some kind of current need to increase the blocksize limit - beyond the evidence of the ongoing spamming that is taking place.

Furthermore, I am not the one that you need to convince.... You and your notjob BIG BLOCKERS need to convince core, and so far you have either refused or failed to convince them, and that seems to be part of the reason why you bunch of cry babies go off and threaten and attack and attempt to destroy rather than working within existing governance systems because your real goal is not at all about the technology and the nonexistent problems that you keep asserting but your goals to sabotage and to overturn and to make bitcoin easier to change... you hope to get your ways by deceiving people that you actually have valid goals and that is why you are posting your nonsense in this bitcoin thread rather than going to your XT, Classic, BU, Bcash, Segwit2x and other dumbasss alt coin proposal threads... you instead want to complain about the real bitcoin rather than creating your own.   

[JayJuanGee]

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

You have your large blocks in BCH. And according to your previous post, BCH is the one true Bitcoin.

So. what. the. fk. is. the. problem. ?

I was just correcting a flawed assertion by JJG. After the predictable pile-on, this is where we arrive. The only _problem_ per se was the insistence that larger blocks serve no purpose - where demonstrably, they do.

Great. So you have your coin BCH, which you say is the one. You have your 8MB large blocks.  And you have your little tribe of supporters. You should be happy. But for some reason you aren't. Because you keep coming back, trying to argue for more changes to Bitcoin. Trying to change Bitcoin into BCH.

So again. what . the fk. is. YOUR. problem?

What the fuck is YOUR problem? This is where we discuss Bitcoin and all its aspects.

I'm not 'trying to change Bitcoin into BCH'. Today I reinvested in my reasoning that BCH will eventually be seen as the One True Bitcoin. I'm trying to get people to see that Segwit Core has usurped the Bitcoin mantle. And hopefully save them some tears in the process.

does a 2mb blocks increase + and long term modest increases in the future effectively make LN obsolete..? ~tia

Why don't you work within what actually exists rather than fantasies about what could exist but doesn't?   

segwit is the part that currently exists, so you cannot just assume it away because it is already locked in and part of bitcoin.  If you want to remove segwit, then you need to get 95% consensus in order to remove it.. so that does not seem too likely to happen, now does it?

[jbreher]

your goals to sabotage and to overturn and to make bitcoin easier to change... you hope to get your ways by deceiving people that you actually have valid goals and that is why you are posting your nonsense

...aaand you're back to your personally-comfortable position of ascribing to others motivations that are not only completely wrong, but also utterly unknowable by you anyhow. Rather than employ reason against my assertions. This is what substitutes for logic in the JJG world. So much easier than defending your pronouncements, isn't it?

My statements about the time it would take to onboard the world at 1MB are clear above. If you want to tell me they are incorrect, then show me where I am wrong. Or are you incapable of the elementary arithmetic required to do the calculation yourself? Need handholding?

[notme]

He got lucky and made some money on the internet.  Now he thinks he's a fucking genius.  It's a common problem around here.

No, apparently the real geniuses are the accounts on this thread that want to convince everyone that that Bitcoin core developers are completely and woefully incompetent, that Bitcoin still sucks and if it just had bigger blocks it would take over the whole fkn world.

See BCH and their dev team for complete fail.

Why does it make you so upset that other people see the world differently than you do?  If they are as wrong as you believe, you should just let time prove you right.  Instead, you get your panties in a bunch whenever someone says anything you disagree with.

[JayJuanGee]

your goals to sabotage and to overturn and to make bitcoin easier to change... you hope to get your ways by deceiving people that you actually have valid goals and that is why you are posting your nonsense

...aaand you're back to your personally-comfortable position of ascribing to others motivations that are not only completely wrong, but also utterly unknowable by you anyhow.

I have a pretty decent idea of your motivations, we have been having various interactions in these BCT forum threads for nearly a couple of years... you have been ascribing to various big blocker nonsense during much of that time in spite of a few intermittent lucid moments that you might share with us.

Rather than employ reason against my assertions. This is what substitutes for logic in the JJG world. So much easier than defending your pronouncements, isn't it?

I don't know about that.  If we are starting from different premises, then all the logic in the world is not going to help.

My statements about the time it would take to onboard the world at 1MB are clear above.

Irrelevant speculation. 

How many folk do you believe are on bitcoin, currently, maybe .1%.  How many want to get on, perhaps 1%.. We gotta long fucking way to go before we would get from 1% to 100%, and likely systems are going to evolve as more people want to onboard... so you are creating some kind of artificial problem that currently does not exist in order that you can be right about some problem that does not exist... I am failing to understand how exactly the onboarding of 100% of the world is relevant at this particular moment of BTC's development - so maybe the burden is on you to show how that supposed problem (that you made up from real facts and logic) is relevant, exactly.

If you want to tell me they are incorrect, then show me where I am wrong.

Why would I have any burden to show you facts or logic about a speculative scenario that you made up (and maybe something that is 30 years into the future) as if it were somehow relevant about a conversation about issues in front of bitcoin today?

Or are you incapable of the elementary arithmetic required to do the calculation yourself? Need handholding?

You don't really mean this do you?  You really think that we are talking about something that boils down to basic math?  So yeah, you are presenting a supposed issue that does not really exist because the essence of our disagreement does not have much of anything to do with basic math, right? 

I mean really.... Can you at least agree that we are somewhere on the lower end of a fraction of a percentage of world adoption, and just imagine first of all getting to a point of 1% adoption might take some time. 

If there are 7 billion people in the world, then 1% would be 70 million using bitcoin in some kind of way... Are we even close to that?  Are we even close to half of that, I have my doubts.  So probably we should be figuring out scenarios involving these kinds of more realistic numbers rather than suggesting some fantastical numbers involving anywhere close to 7 billion people.

[Torque]

He got lucky and made some money on the internet.  Now he thinks he's a fucking genius.  It's a common problem around here.

No, apparently the real geniuses are the accounts on this thread that want to convince everyone that that Bitcoin core developers are completely and woefully incompetent, that Bitcoin still sucks and if it just had bigger blocks it would take over the whole fkn world.

See BCH and their dev team for complete fail.

Why does it make you so upset that other people see the world differently than you do?  If they are as wrong as you believe, you should just let time prove you right.  Instead, you get your panties in a bunch whenever someone says anything you disagree with.

I have no problem at all with the exchange/sharing of ideas and non-confrontational debate. It's healthy and should be applauded.

But c'mon, this whole block size thing? FFS, it's getting really old guys. Like for years and years now has this topic been discussed and debated ad nauseam. By internet armchair warrior geniuses who have no computer programming or blockchain coding expertise, but somehow think they know better than the very people involved with the project, the Bitcoin Core dev team. The block size debate is a dead horse that has been beaten so much over the years, it's been pounded into complete dust.

And then these same people, after years and years of flooding the forums with teeth gnashing, circular and confrontational debate, FINALLY get what they want (BCH w/ 8MB block limit) and their own dev team separate from Core, and then they have the audacity to dismiss it lightly and come back and continue the debate around shoving bigger blocks into Bitcoin? Like now BCH wasn't somehow good enough, wasn't what they wanted after all? I thought that bigger blocks was the answer to all of Bitcoin's problems? Wasn't BCH supposed to solve everything?

These people aren't just debating and discussing ideas. They are trolling.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

This is one blockchain, not the bloody Noah's ark. The limits of on-chain scalability are evident even to the likes of me...

So you're happy with a limit of getting 2% of the population onto LN per year, with no bandwidth left for any other other transactions (like, maybe, to rescind a cheating LN transaction by your channel counterparty trying to steal your funds)?

Fine. In the boxes next to your name, I'll check the 1MB4EVAH column.

I'll believe a hard fork is absolutely necessary when the entire development community--including the actual developers--concedes that it's necessary. Not because of block politics.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/850820512771055616

[DaRude]

This is Bitcoin sub forum, not a BCH sub forum. You have the coin with big blocks that you so desperately wanted, and you got it. So again, why do you repeatedly keep coming back here? Why aren't you off with your little tribe?

Oh, I know why. Because you are a troll. Because only a troll keeps coming back to a sub forum thread after they supposedly got what they wanted. Quit trying to 'save' anyone here from anything. We don't need saving. Everyone here knows what Bitcoin is and what BCH is. And people here want to discuss Bitcoin, not BCH. Nor want to discuss how to turn Bitcoin in BCH.

I am discussing Bitcoin. I am discussing Bitcoin Segwit Core, Bitcoin Segwit 2M, and Bitcoin Cash.

Life is a game of probabilities. While I am confident that BCH will eventually be recognized as the One True Bitcoin, only a fool would ascribe 100% to any such outcome. As such, if there is a case for improving Segwit, I am going to make it.

I am decidedly not a troll. Are you a troll? Is Segwit Core 'what you wanted'? Then why do you return to this sub forum?

Yes, we all (most) probably know what Bitcoin is. I doubt, however, that everyone here was complicit with you appointing yourself arbiter as to what may or may not witness being discussed here.

Regardless, it is quite clear that at least some have not yet heard the fact that onboarding the world will take decades at 1MB, and that neither segwit nor LN ameliorates this issue, while block size increases do. If you really want to wallow in willful ignorance, feel free to ignore me. I'd be a little sad -- I seem to remember us having cordial conversations in the past -- but I'd live.

"While I am confident that BCH will eventually be recognized as the One True Bitcoin..." with that logic it's definitely good to diversify so you don't loose all of your money. In due time you'll look back and realize how you were taken for a ride, and thank people who stood up to it  

oh oh do tell how block increases helps on boarding the world? Would you mind doing a simple math on how big your blocks should be for every person in the world to do just one transaction on chain per day? I'll wait

[notme]

This is Bitcoin sub forum, not a BCH sub forum. You have the coin with big blocks that you so desperately wanted, and you got it. So again, why do you repeatedly keep coming back here? Why aren't you off with your little tribe?

Oh, I know why. Because you are a troll. Because only a troll keeps coming back to a sub forum thread after they supposedly got what they wanted. Quit trying to 'save' anyone here from anything. We don't need saving. Everyone here knows what Bitcoin is and what BCH is. And people here want to discuss Bitcoin, not BCH. Nor want to discuss how to turn Bitcoin in BCH.

I am discussing Bitcoin. I am discussing Bitcoin Segwit Core, Bitcoin Segwit 2M, and Bitcoin Cash.

Life is a game of probabilities. While I am confident that BCH will eventually be recognized as the One True Bitcoin, only a fool would ascribe 100% to any such outcome. As such, if there is a case for improving Segwit, I am going to make it.

I am decidedly not a troll. Are you a troll? Is Segwit Core 'what you wanted'? Then why do you return to this sub forum?

Yes, we all (most) probably know what Bitcoin is. I doubt, however, that everyone here was complicit with you appointing yourself arbiter as to what may or may not witness being discussed here.

Regardless, it is quite clear that at least some have not yet heard the fact that onboarding the world will take decades at 1MB, and that neither segwit nor LN ameliorates this issue, while block size increases do. If you really want to wallow in willful ignorance, feel free to ignore me. I'd be a little sad -- I seem to remember us having cordial conversations in the past -- but I'd live.

"While I am confident that BCH will eventually be recognized as the One True Bitcoin..." with that logic it's definitely good to diversify so you don't loose all of your money. In due time you'll look back and realize how you were taken for a ride, and thank people who stood up to it  

oh oh do tell how block increases helps on boarding the world? Would you mind doing a simple math on how big your blocks should be for every person in the world to do just one transaction on chain per day? I'll wait

Assuming an average transaction size of 600 bytes and 7.5 billion people:
31.25 GB

[DaRude]

This is Bitcoin sub forum, not a BCH sub forum. You have the coin with big blocks that you so desperately wanted, and you got it. So again, why do you repeatedly keep coming back here? Why aren't you off with your little tribe?

Oh, I know why. Because you are a troll. Because only a troll keeps coming back to a sub forum thread after they supposedly got what they wanted. Quit trying to 'save' anyone here from anything. We don't need saving. Everyone here knows what Bitcoin is and what BCH is. And people here want to discuss Bitcoin, not BCH. Nor want to discuss how to turn Bitcoin in BCH.

I am discussing Bitcoin. I am discussing Bitcoin Segwit Core, Bitcoin Segwit 2M, and Bitcoin Cash.

Life is a game of probabilities. While I am confident that BCH will eventually be recognized as the One True Bitcoin, only a fool would ascribe 100% to any such outcome. As such, if there is a case for improving Segwit, I am going to make it.

I am decidedly not a troll. Are you a troll? Is Segwit Core 'what you wanted'? Then why do you return to this sub forum?

Yes, we all (most) probably know what Bitcoin is. I doubt, however, that everyone here was complicit with you appointing yourself arbiter as to what may or may not witness being discussed here.

Regardless, it is quite clear that at least some have not yet heard the fact that onboarding the world will take decades at 1MB, and that neither segwit nor LN ameliorates this issue, while block size increases do. If you really want to wallow in willful ignorance, feel free to ignore me. I'd be a little sad -- I seem to remember us having cordial conversations in the past -- but I'd live.

"While I am confident that BCH will eventually be recognized as the One True Bitcoin..." with that logic it's definitely good to diversify so you don't loose all of your money. In due time you'll look back and realize how you were taken for a ride, and thank people who stood up to it  

oh oh do tell how block increases helps on boarding the world? Would you mind doing a simple math on how big your blocks should be for every person in the world to do just one transaction on chain per day? I'll wait

Assuming an average transaction size of 600 bytes and 7.5 billion people:
31.25 GB

But that's still less than unlimited right? Hmm maybe BU was actually on to something 

[notme]

This is Bitcoin sub forum, not a BCH sub forum. You have the coin with big blocks that you so desperately wanted, and you got it. So again, why do you repeatedly keep coming back here? Why aren't you off with your little tribe?

Oh, I know why. Because you are a troll. Because only a troll keeps coming back to a sub forum thread after they supposedly got what they wanted. Quit trying to 'save' anyone here from anything. We don't need saving. Everyone here knows what Bitcoin is and what BCH is. And people here want to discuss Bitcoin, not BCH. Nor want to discuss how to turn Bitcoin in BCH.

I am discussing Bitcoin. I am discussing Bitcoin Segwit Core, Bitcoin Segwit 2M, and Bitcoin Cash.

Life is a game of probabilities. While I am confident that BCH will eventually be recognized as the One True Bitcoin, only a fool would ascribe 100% to any such outcome. As such, if there is a case for improving Segwit, I am going to make it.

I am decidedly not a troll. Are you a troll? Is Segwit Core 'what you wanted'? Then why do you return to this sub forum?

Yes, we all (most) probably know what Bitcoin is. I doubt, however, that everyone here was complicit with you appointing yourself arbiter as to what may or may not witness being discussed here.

Regardless, it is quite clear that at least some have not yet heard the fact that onboarding the world will take decades at 1MB, and that neither segwit nor LN ameliorates this issue, while block size increases do. If you really want to wallow in willful ignorance, feel free to ignore me. I'd be a little sad -- I seem to remember us having cordial conversations in the past -- but I'd live.

"While I am confident that BCH will eventually be recognized as the One True Bitcoin..." with that logic it's definitely good to diversify so you don't loose all of your money. In due time you'll look back and realize how you were taken for a ride, and thank people who stood up to it  

oh oh do tell how block increases helps on boarding the world? Would you mind doing a simple math on how big your blocks should be for every person in the world to do just one transaction on chain per day? I'll wait

Assuming an average transaction size of 600 bytes and 7.5 billion people:
31.25 GB

But that's still less than unlimited right? Hmm maybe BU was actually on to something 

Hey, you could keep up if you had a 425 Mbps connection

[Gab0]

He got lucky and made some money on the internet.  Now he thinks he's a fucking genius.  It's a common problem around here.

No, apparently the real geniuses are the accounts on this thread that want to convince everyone that that Bitcoin core developers are completely and woefully incompetent, that Bitcoin still sucks and if it just had bigger blocks it would take over the whole fkn world.

See BCH and their dev team for complete fail.

Why does it make you so upset that other people see the world differently than you do?  If they are as wrong as you believe, you should just let time prove you right.  Instead, you get your panties in a bunch whenever someone says anything you disagree with.

I have no problem at all with the exchange/sharing of ideas and non-confrontational debate. It's healthy and should be applauded.

But c'mon, this whole block size thing? FFS, it's getting really old guys. Like for years and years now has this topic been discussed and debated ad nauseam. By internet armchair warrior geniuses who have no computer programming or blockchain coding expertise, but somehow think they know better than the very people involved with the project, the Bitcoin Core dev team. The block size debate is a dead horse that has been beaten so much over the years, it's been pounded into complete dust.

And then these same people, after years and years of flooding the forums with teeth gnashing, circular and confrontational debate, FINALLY get what they want (BCH w/ 8MB block limit) and their own dev team separate from Core, and then they have the audacity to dismiss it lightly and come back and continue the debate around shoving bigger blocks into Bitcoin? Like now BCH wasn't somehow good enough, wasn't what they wanted after all? I thought that bigger blocks was the answer to all of Bitcoin's problems? Wasn't BCH supposed to solve everything?

These people aren't just debating and discussing ideas. They are trolling.

Oh! I get it; and since it was already discussed to the point of exhaustion, we'd better discuss the Las Vegas conspiracy, right?.

Out of sarcasm, there is a pink elephant in the room and you don't want to see it.
Now, more than 90% of hash power signaling part x2 of the NY agreement, and you're pretending there's nothing to discuss here?

[DaRude]

He got lucky and made some money on the internet.  Now he thinks he's a fucking genius.  It's a common problem around here.

No, apparently the real geniuses are the accounts on this thread that want to convince everyone that that Bitcoin core developers are completely and woefully incompetent, that Bitcoin still sucks and if it just had bigger blocks it would take over the whole fkn world.

See BCH and their dev team for complete fail.

Why does it make you so upset that other people see the world differently than you do?  If they are as wrong as you believe, you should just let time prove you right.  Instead, you get your panties in a bunch whenever someone says anything you disagree with.

I have no problem at all with the exchange/sharing of ideas and non-confrontational debate. It's healthy and should be applauded.

But c'mon, this whole block size thing? FFS, it's getting really old guys. Like for years and years now has this topic been discussed and debated ad nauseam. By internet armchair warrior geniuses who have no computer programming or blockchain coding expertise, but somehow think they know better than the very people involved with the project, the Bitcoin Core dev team. The block size debate is a dead horse that has been beaten so much over the years, it's been pounded into complete dust.

And then these same people, after years and years of flooding the forums with teeth gnashing, circular and confrontational debate, FINALLY get what they want (BCH w/ 8MB block limit) and their own dev team separate from Core, and then they have the audacity to dismiss it lightly and come back and continue the debate around shoving bigger blocks into Bitcoin? Like now BCH wasn't somehow good enough, wasn't what they wanted after all? I thought that bigger blocks was the answer to all of Bitcoin's problems? Wasn't BCH supposed to solve everything?

These people aren't just debating and discussing ideas. They are trolling.

Oh! I get it; and since it was already discussed to the point of exhaustion, we'd better discuss the Las Vegas conspiracy, right?.

Out of sarcasm, there is a pink elephant in the room and you don't want to see it.
Now, more than 90% of hash power signaling part x2 of the NY agreement, and you're pretending there's nothing to discuss here?

90% of people are asking for a pay raise? No way!! STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!! Or are we assuming what's good for miners is good for the environment as a whole?

Miners are a tool, they don't get to make the rules, they just need to follow them or fork off

[JayJuanGee]

He got lucky and made some money on the internet.  Now he thinks he's a fucking genius.  It's a common problem around here.

No, apparently the real geniuses are the accounts on this thread that want to convince everyone that that Bitcoin core developers are completely and woefully incompetent, that Bitcoin still sucks and if it just had bigger blocks it would take over the whole fkn world.

See BCH and their dev team for complete fail.

Why does it make you so upset that other people see the world differently than you do?  If they are as wrong as you believe, you should just let time prove you right.  Instead, you get your panties in a bunch whenever someone says anything you disagree with.

I have no problem at all with the exchange/sharing of ideas and non-confrontational debate. It's healthy and should be applauded.

But c'mon, this whole block size thing? FFS, it's getting really old guys. Like for years and years now has this topic been discussed and debated ad nauseam. By internet armchair warrior geniuses who have no computer programming or blockchain coding expertise, but somehow think they know better than the very people involved with the project, the Bitcoin Core dev team. The block size debate is a dead horse that has been beaten so much over the years, it's been pounded into complete dust.

And then these same people, after years and years of flooding the forums with teeth gnashing, circular and confrontational debate, FINALLY get what they want (BCH w/ 8MB block limit) and their own dev team separate from Core, and then they have the audacity to dismiss it lightly and come back and continue the debate around shoving bigger blocks into Bitcoin? Like now BCH wasn't somehow good enough, wasn't what they wanted after all? I thought that bigger blocks was the answer to all of Bitcoin's problems? Wasn't BCH supposed to solve everything?

These people aren't just debating and discussing ideas. They are trolling.

Oh! I get it; and since it was already discussed to the point of exhaustion, we'd better discuss the Las Vegas conspiracy, right?.

Out of sarcasm, there is a pink elephant in the room and you don't want to see it.
Now, more than 90% of hash power signaling part x2 of the NY agreement, and you're pretending there's nothing to discuss here?

How many of them are going to actually run the software?  Is there software available yet?   Oh?  90%-ish is going to signal intention to run the software until November 15 or whatever the date, and then when it comes time to run the actual software how many of them are going to run it?  90% or some other number?  You think 51% will do?   Or some other number?  Which chain is going to be more profitable to mine, do we know that yet?  Profittability will likely make a difference for a large number of miners, no?

Lot's still to happen and to find out in the coming 5-6 weeks, no?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]