Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

I don't have an account on Reddit or any other Conde Naste organ.  That ant-farm is occasionally amusing, but overall too smug and mid-brow for my taste.  They don't even allow more than one side of the anthropogenic climate change debate to be represented!

If I posted at Reddit you would have recognized my writing style.  But I will not contribute free content to any such lumpen bastion of preening, asinine normativity.  I'm shocked and disappointed you fit in so well over there, but alas, so goes the Gavinista movement...

first you claim gmax is schooling me over on Reddit, then i give you a link showing i'm schooling him based on upvotes, you then tell me you're going to take over for him, and now you're telling me you don't go over there?

can you be any more misleading?

[cypherdoc]

Would any of you guys care to comment on these two articles that assert that :

1) We are already hitting the 1MB block limit "an average of more than four times per day so far in 2015"

I haven't had time to read the articles (links at quoted post above) but my initial response to the claim is that is suggests the "hard crash" theory is wrong. If we are already hitting the limit regularly, then the system is able to handle that. People will learn to use higher tx fees to prioritize urgent transactions, just as they learned to stop using zero fee for urgent transactions a year or two ago, and slightly longer term probably a bunch of spam will get forced off the network altogether. The market mechanism is working.

I've personally run into very slow confirms of low-fee-paying transactions twice, but it wasn't he end of the world (with a ten minute avg block time you have to be prepared for slow confirms anyway). The next time I do a transaction if I care about urgency I'll probably increase the fee a little above the default.

this just tells me we'll never reach an agreement.  and i'm sure you fully believe what you're saying.  i'm sure if fees hit $100/tx you'd probably say it's fine, it will just settle out with time.  the problem is, many ppl are going to quit using Bitcoin well before then and adoption won't go anywhere and probably will go into reverse.

but it's useless debating this anymore b/c opinions are entrenched.  those of us who want to fork off will just have to do so for us to realize our vision of a more widespread network effect.  and that will be ok.  you can do what you want.

[smooth]

Would any of you guys care to comment on these two articles that assert that :

1) We are already hitting the 1MB block limit "an average of more than four times per day so far in 2015"

I haven't had time to read the articles (links at quoted post above) but my initial response to the claim is that is suggests the "hard crash" theory is wrong. If we are already hitting the limit regularly, then the system is able to handle that. People will learn to use higher tx fees to prioritize urgent transactions, just as they learned to stop using zero fee for urgent transactions a year or two ago, and slightly longer term probably a bunch of spam will get forced off the network altogether. The market mechanism is working.

I've personally run into very slow confirms of low-fee-paying transactions twice, but it wasn't he end of the world (with a ten minute avg block time you have to be prepared for slow confirms anyway). The next time I do a transaction if I care about urgency I'll probably increase the fee a little above the default.

this just tells me we'll never reach an agreement.  and i'm sure you fully believe what you're saying.  i'm sure if fees hit $100/tx you'd probably say it's fine, it will just settle out with time.  the problem is, many ppl are going to quit using Bitcoin well before then and adoption won't go anywhere and probably will go into reverse.

but it's useless debating this anymore b/c opinions are entrenched.  those of us who want to fork off will just have to do so for us to realize our vision of a more widespread network effect.  and that will be ok.  you can do what you want.

I don't really have a strong opinion on the block size. I'm perfectly comfortable popping some corn and watching Gavin and MP go at it.

If I were king I would increase it modestly (less than 20 MB).

I don't know whether $100/tx would be fine. As a reserve currency it might be fine. As a transactional currency it obviously wouldn't.

I also don't know that $100/tx is a realistic estimate any time soon given that we are now at something like $0.05 to nearly aways get into the next block (and getting into the very next block is not always needed -- for a lower fee you can be still be very confident of getting in the next several blocks).

[iCEBREAKER]

oh iCE, you're impossible 

btw, you didn't answer phoenix this morning:

I'd rather be an impossible person with a clue about the world of mining pools than a protectionist who spouts off about affairs of which they know little.   

My take on phoenix is the same as smooth and lukejr's.  IE:  Full blocks?  Good!

the "hard crash" theory is wrong. If we are already hitting the limit regularly, then the system is able to handle that. People will learn to use higher tx fees to prioritize urgent transactions, just as they learned to stop using zero fee for urgent transactions a year or two ago, and slightly longer term probably a bunch of spam will get forced off the network altogether. The market mechanism is working.

I've personally run into very slow confirms of low-fee-paying transactions twice, but it wasn't he end of the world (with a ten minute avg block time you have to be prepared for slow confirms anyway). The next time I do a transaction if I care about urgency I'll probably increase the fee a little above the default.

You need to accept the existence of trade-offs between security and convenience.  A distributed, profoundly antifragile system designed for settlement cannot be everywhere all the time, instantly.

first you claim gmax is schooling me over on Reddit, then i give you a link showing i'm schooling him based on upvotes, you then tell me you're going to take over for him, and now you're telling me you don't go over there?

can you be any more misleading?

Don't call me a liar.  I admitted to browsing nullc and other core dev commentary when linked from here.  You don't have to have an account or log in to read Reddit.

Once again, if I were posting there you would recognize my inimitable writing style (unless you've gone full paranoid and believe I'd adopt a different persona).

You know full well I've had in the past vicious quarrels with gmax.  But the truth is he has in recent posts been making a fool of you, green arrows notwithstanding.

As for upvotes from Gavinista redditards, it pains me to witness the once-mighty cypherdoc reduced to argumentum ad populum.   

[cypherdoc]

I don't know whether $100/tx would be fine. As a reserve currency it might be fine. As a transactional currency it obviously wouldn't.

I also don't know that $100/tx is a realistic estimate any time soon given that we are now at something like $0.05 to nearly aways get into the next block (and getting into the very next block is not always needed -- for a lower fee you can be still be very confident of getting in the next several blocks).

$100 was just pulled out of my ass.  but your response illustrates exactly what i was saying the other day.  i contend that lukejr and gmax would say the same thing, they don't know that $100/tx would be fine.  according to them it could be based on whether they see Bitcoin as a reserve currency or b/c they are financially captured and wish to see their SC's benefit.

pt being, there is no sense waiting for the "last minute" b/c no one will agree what the "last minute" is.

[cypherdoc]

oh iCE, you're impossible  

btw, you didn't answer phoenix this morning:

I'd rather be an impossible person with a clue about the world of mining pools than a protectionist who spouts off about affairs of which they know little.  

My take on phoenix is the same as smooth and lukejr's.  IE:  Full blocks?  Good!

the "hard crash" theory is wrong. If we are already hitting the limit regularly, then the system is able to handle that. People will learn to use higher tx fees to prioritize urgent transactions, just as they learned to stop using zero fee for urgent transactions a year or two ago, and slightly longer term probably a bunch of spam will get forced off the network altogether. The market mechanism is working.

I've personally run into very slow confirms of low-fee-paying transactions twice, but it wasn't he end of the world (with a ten minute avg block time you have to be prepared for slow confirms anyway). The next time I do a transaction if I care about urgency I'll probably increase the fee a little above the default.

You need to accept the existence of trade-offs between security and convenience.  A distributed, profoundly antifragile system designed for settlement cannot be everywhere all the time, instantly.

first you claim gmax is schooling me over on Reddit, then i give you a link showing i'm schooling him based on upvotes, you then tell me you're going to take over for him, and now you're telling me you don't go over there?

can you be any more misleading?

Don't call me a liar.  I admitted to browsing nullc and other core dev commentary when linked from here.  You don't have to have an account or log in to read Reddit.

Once again, if I were posting there you would recognize my inimitable writing style (unless you've gone full paranoid and believe I'd adopt a different persona).

You know full well I've had in the past vicious quarrels with gmax.  But the truth is he has in recent posts been making a fool of you, green arrows notwithstanding.

As for upvotes from Gavinista redditards, it pains me to witness the once-mighty cypherdoc reduced to argumentum ad populum.  

who just reads reddit w/o posting?  esp someone with your mouth?  you know you wouldn't be able to help yourself.

[smooth]

I don't know whether $100/tx would be fine. As a reserve currency it might be fine. As a transactional currency it obviously wouldn't.

I also don't know that $100/tx is a realistic estimate any time soon given that we are now at something like $0.05 to nearly aways get into the next block (and getting into the very next block is not always needed -- for a lower fee you can be still be very confident of getting in the next several blocks).

$100 was just pulled out of my ass.  but your response illustrates exactly what i was saying the other day.  i contend that lukejr and gmax would say the same thing, they don't know that $100/tx would be fine.  according to them it could be based on whether they see Bitcoin as a reserve currency or b/c they are financially captured and wish to see their SC's benefit.

pt being, there is no sense waiting for the "last minute" b/c no one will agree what the "last minute" is.

Maybe its worth giving them the benefit of the doubt then. I have zero investment in sidechains, and I don't even think that sidechains even work!

Of course you could claim that I just care about sabotaging Bitcoin because Monero, but you'd be wrong about that too.

Maybe it is possible that people who actually understand the technology just have serious doubts about Gavin's approach of scaling it up the way you scale up a web site?

[cypherdoc]

I don't know whether $100/tx would be fine. As a reserve currency it might be fine. As a transactional currency it obviously wouldn't.

I also don't know that $100/tx is a realistic estimate any time soon given that we are now at something like $0.05 to nearly aways get into the next block (and getting into the very next block is not always needed -- for a lower fee you can be still be very confident of getting in the next several blocks).

$100 was just pulled out of my ass.  but your response illustrates exactly what i was saying the other day.  i contend that lukejr and gmax would say the same thing, they don't know that $100/tx would be fine.  according to them it could be based on whether they see Bitcoin as a reserve currency or b/c they are financially captured and wish to see their SC's benefit.

pt being, there is no sense waiting for the "last minute" b/c no one will agree what the "last minute" is.

Maybe its worth giving them the benefit of the doubt them. I have zero investment in sidechains, and I don't even think that sidechains even work!

Of course you could claim that I just care about sabotaging Bitcoin because Monero, but you'd be wrong about that too.

Maybe it is possible that people who actually understand the technology just have serious doubts about Gavin's approach of scaling it up the way you scale up a web site?

i'm sure some do but i think it's also true that Bitcoin can never be safe nor become a true currency unless it experiences "wider" adoption.  with 1MB, i don't think there is any doubt we get stuck where we are in terms of adoption.  i think even the skeptics see this and is why they're "hedging" the argument now by saying they're all in favor of an increase but it's a matter of how much and when.  at least from "our" standpoint, that's some progress.

the "wider" adoption is the question.  i firmly believe that we should push the tech hard to test it's limits.  the further out it spreads to the far ends of the earth, the safer and more successful Bitcoin will be.  that would be the ultimate decentralization which no gvt could reverse.  we'll never know unless we try.  the fall back is we could pull back the block size if we had to. 

[iCEBREAKER]

I don't know whether $100/tx would be fine. As a reserve currency it might be fine. As a transactional currency it obviously wouldn't.

I also don't know that $100/tx is a realistic estimate any time soon given that we are now at something like $0.05 to nearly aways get into the next block (and getting into the very next block is not always needed -- for a lower fee you can be still be very confident of getting in the next several blocks).

$100 was just pulled out of my ass.  but your response illustrates exactly what i was saying the other day.  i contend that lukejr and gmax would say the same thing, they don't know that $100/tx would be fine.  according to them it could be based on whether they see Bitcoin as a reserve currency or b/c they are financially captured and wish to see their SC's benefit.

pt being, there is no sense waiting for the "last minute" b/c no one will agree what the "last minute" is.

We can't agree on an ex nihilo/a priori definition ahead of time, but when the "last minute" comes we will know it.

who just reads reddit w/o posting?  esp someone with your mouth?  you know you wouldn't be able to help yourself.

I read reddit w/o posting.  Have you seen anyone with my mouth there?  No, you have not.

gmax casts his pearls of wisdom before the Redditurd Gavinista cargo-cultist swine; I will not.  This venue is much more well suited to my refined tastes and high expectations of intellect.

[smooth]

I don't know whether $100/tx would be fine. As a reserve currency it might be fine. As a transactional currency it obviously wouldn't.

I also don't know that $100/tx is a realistic estimate any time soon given that we are now at something like $0.05 to nearly aways get into the next block (and getting into the very next block is not always needed -- for a lower fee you can be still be very confident of getting in the next several blocks).

$100 was just pulled out of my ass.  but your response illustrates exactly what i was saying the other day.  i contend that lukejr and gmax would say the same thing, they don't know that $100/tx would be fine.  according to them it could be based on whether they see Bitcoin as a reserve currency or b/c they are financially captured and wish to see their SC's benefit.

pt being, there is no sense waiting for the "last minute" b/c no one will agree what the "last minute" is.

Maybe its worth giving them the benefit of the doubt them. I have zero investment in sidechains, and I don't even think that sidechains even work!

Of course you could claim that I just care about sabotaging Bitcoin because Monero, but you'd be wrong about that too.

Maybe it is possible that people who actually understand the technology just have serious doubts about Gavin's approach of scaling it up the way you scale up a web site?

i'm sure some do but i think it's also true that Bitcoin can never be safe nor become a true currency unless it experiences "wider" adoption.  with 1MB, i don't think there is any doubt we get stuck where we are in terms of adoption.  i think even the skeptics see this and is why they're "hedging" the argument now by saying they're all in favor of an increase but it's a matter of how much and when.  at least from "our" standpoint, that's some progress.

the "wider" adoption is the question.  i firmly believe that we should push the tech hard to test it's limits.  the further out it spreads to the far ends of the earth, the safer and more successful Bitcoin will be.  that would be the ultimate decentralization which no gvt could reverse.  we'll never know unless we try.  the fall back is we could pull back the block size if we had to. 

i don't know man, I kind of feel the opposite, that getting nodes and miners spread out to the corners of the earth is more important to resisting hostile takeover than users. The former is probably helped by keeping the scale of transactions under control, not by increasing it.

[iCEBREAKER]

I have zero investment in sidechains, and I don't even think that sidechains even work!

Of course you could claim that I just care about sabotaging Bitcoin because Monero, but you'd be wrong about that too.

Maybe it is possible that people who actually understand the technology just have serious doubts about Gavin's approach of scaling it up the way you scale up a web site?

☐ Not REKT
☑ REKT

[cypherdoc]

I read reddit w/o posting.  Have you seen anyone with my mouth there?  No, you have not.

iCE with his mouth zipped?  my lord, there is a god!

you know from now on whenever i post there slinging shit at the Blockstream guys, i will be smiling to myself knowing you can't say anything.

[cypherdoc]

I don't know whether $100/tx would be fine. As a reserve currency it might be fine. As a transactional currency it obviously wouldn't.

I also don't know that $100/tx is a realistic estimate any time soon given that we are now at something like $0.05 to nearly aways get into the next block (and getting into the very next block is not always needed -- for a lower fee you can be still be very confident of getting in the next several blocks).

$100 was just pulled out of my ass.  but your response illustrates exactly what i was saying the other day.  i contend that lukejr and gmax would say the same thing, they don't know that $100/tx would be fine.  according to them it could be based on whether they see Bitcoin as a reserve currency or b/c they are financially captured and wish to see their SC's benefit.

pt being, there is no sense waiting for the "last minute" b/c no one will agree what the "last minute" is.

Maybe its worth giving them the benefit of the doubt them. I have zero investment in sidechains, and I don't even think that sidechains even work!

Of course you could claim that I just care about sabotaging Bitcoin because Monero, but you'd be wrong about that too.

Maybe it is possible that people who actually understand the technology just have serious doubts about Gavin's approach of scaling it up the way you scale up a web site?

i'm sure some do but i think it's also true that Bitcoin can never be safe nor become a true currency unless it experiences "wider" adoption.  with 1MB, i don't think there is any doubt we get stuck where we are in terms of adoption.  i think even the skeptics see this and is why they're "hedging" the argument now by saying they're all in favor of an increase but it's a matter of how much and when.  at least from "our" standpoint, that's some progress.

the "wider" adoption is the question.  i firmly believe that we should push the tech hard to test it's limits.  the further out it spreads to the far ends of the earth, the safer and more successful Bitcoin will be.  that would be the ultimate decentralization which no gvt could reverse.  we'll never know unless we try.  the fall back is we could pull back the block size if we had to.  

i don't know man, I kind of feel the opposite, that getting nodes and miners spread out to the corners of the earth is more important to resisting hostile takeover than users. The former is probably helped by keeping the scale of transactions under control, not by increasing it.

if you've been reading my posts recently you'll know i feel that is a fundamental misunderstanding by you devs.  you view the full node as the fundamental unit of the system whereas i feel it is the user.  my view is supported by phenoms like Uber, AirBnb, Facebook and just about every other successful internet company out there who scrambled to scarf up users as fast as they could before regulations kicked in or before their competitors could react.  that way the gvt couldn't very well say no to all their same constituents who voted them in who were also using these new services.  

the way i see it, full nodes are similar to ACH or Swift services which is just the plumbing of the system dominated and driven by users.

[iCEBREAKER]

I read reddit w/o posting.  Have you seen anyone with my mouth there?  No, you have not.

iCE with his mouth zipped?  my lord, there is a god!

you know from now on whenever i post there slinging shit at the Blockstream guys, i will be smiling to myself knowing you can't say anything.

I can say something and do, but at the venue of my choosing - not yours.

Besides, pwuille, nullc, lukejr, and petertodd don't need my help bending you over and administering corrective spankings.  They're already doing a great job of that.

Funny how when the question was "Sidechains?" your answer was "the simplest and safest approach should be tried first."

But when the question is "GavinCoin?" you answer suddenly changes to "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"

[smooth]

if you've been reading my posts recently you'll know i feel that is a fundamental misunderstanding by you devs.  you view the full node as the fundamental unit of the system whereas i feel it is the user.  my view is supported by phenoms like Uber, AirBnb, Facebook and just about every other successful internet company out there who scrambled to scarf up users as fast as they could before regulations kicked in or before their competitors could react.  that way the gvt couldn't very well say no to all their same constituents who voted them in who were also using these new services.  

You don't understand the fundamental difference. Uber, AirBnb, etc. want to be regulated businesses that are protectorates of the state. They just want to get big before that happens. The regulations that are written around their businesses (by or in collaboration with their lobbyists) can then be used as a moat to keep others out, protecting their profit margins.

That model doesn't apply to Bitcoin. At all.

[TPTB_need_war]

Are you still 100% sure I won't produce an alt that will stand out and meet your criteria for buying an alt?

no, but you seem to be 100% sure you will.  and that is the problem.  your arrogance in this regard is stunning esp given the ongoing rant about how TPTB have enslaved us for 5000 yrs and despite Bitcoin having surprised everyone including you and except for early adopters like me.  yet somehow, you are certain you will come up with the altcoin that will save us all.

I accede this point to you, except that you can't seem to see you are doing the exactly the same bravado combined with mono-thought in a domain where you are not expert and are just a layman-come-lately armchair chatterbox.

 my record is crystal clear and verifiable right here in this forum.

HODLing from $1000 down to $150, soon to be < $100. While I was fightingdisagreeing with rpietila, smooth, and others on the prediction for $300 back at $600 the first time, then I predicted the bounce, then I predicted the fall back to $300, then I predicted the small bounce and fall to $150. I made all of those calls. Ask the people who know me and were following me in Bitmessage. As well, I made posts on the forum about most of those timing calls.

 did you sell gold and silver at their tops in 2011?  i did.  did you short them as well?  i did.

Better than that, I predicted the exact timing of the rise from $25 and price peak and fall 8 - 9 months before it occurred. Here is was that public prediction

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23786.html

 did you buy Bitcoin when it was low?

Did you buy 1000oz bars and mint them into rounds at $9 in 2008 when there was a shortage of rounds in the USA. And resell them to increase your stash to 18,000 oz. I did.

Did you create a one man company in 1998 to create, market, and do customer support for Cool Page and Art-O-Matic, wherein Cool Page had 335,000 websites (verified by "link:coolpage.com" a former altavista feature) and > 1 million downloads by 2001? I did. (noting this was all before any of the social networks we have today, such as Friendster which launched in 2002). Did you contract the former programmer of Borland C for 1 week of work in 2001 paying $30,000 for his services ($100,000 in todays money) and then fixing an O(n) bug in 30 minutes that he couldn't find and fix after days of requesting the fix.

I had numerous major accomplishments and I don't need to enumerate all of them.

did you buy Bitcoin when you arrived here in Jan 2013 when it was $13?  no.  i'm not bragging here; only defending myself from your arrogant attacks and ad hominems.

Were you rushed by ambulance (because I could only crawl) to the hospital in May 2012 with an exploded acute peptic ulcer that was leaking stomach acid into your abdominal cavity causing all the internal organs to fail, in excrutiating pain (that can't be described! and I can handle pain I played football games with broken bones!) and then after surviving what the doctors thought might be fatal, that destroying my digestive system causing my Multiple Sclerosis to go bezerk, such from that point on I was suffering severe inability to think with debilitating Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. What happening was because I am such a fighter and athlete my body when into adrenal overdrive such that I was constantly in state of panic feeling of "Fight or Flight" instinct. This caused me to feel desperation and lose $75,000 on an options bet following a promoter Graham Summers. So by the time Jan 2013 arrived, I had decided to disciple myself to make no major decisions until my illness could be cured.

Fuck if you use my performance while so incredibly ill as indicative of anything, then you are a fool.

I am coming cured now because I am smart enough to have figured out (with the help of listening and interacting with many others, something which your mono-thought myopia can't do) that the cure to Multiple Sclerosis is all about restoring the kilos of good gut bacteria.

And so now you have to deal with the real me. The one with those Herculian accomplishments in the past. And I know damn well my capabilities are in the exceptional class on the order of those core Bitcoin devs. My weakness coming in is I was not trained in cryptography and had to teach myself.

i glanced over your stuff, Shelby.  we probably think alot in more ways than you think.  but i, unlike you, don't claim to know the future with 100% certainty.

I did study A.I. formally. And thus I have enough understanding of what Armstrong has likely done, to know what he is capable of predicting. And his record since the 1980s shows that his extensive modeling (coupled with the largest database on earth, some $1 billion invested in collecting the data) can indeed predict the future with great accuracy. If you want to ignore the power of correlation and statistics when combined with A.I. pattern matching modeling, then you have a right to be humiliated.

I am confident because I understand the science involved.

And yet you try to tell experts in their domains that you know better than them. Is that wise? You loud mouthed fool.

Do I come into your eye clinic and boast that I know more about macular degeneration than you.

 thus, i don't diss Bitcoin in the face of what it has accomplished.  and that is "great things".  and Satoshi is "great" until proven otherwise.  the protocol has not failed nor is there any signs of it despite everyone complaining about the price.  the burden of proof is on you and until or unless you prove your claims with some real results then i remain highly skeptical of you.

You are an autodidactic n00b that has grabbed onto a short-term signal and proclaimed that makes you an expert of extrapolation while lacking the sampling size to avoid aliasing error.

Two apropos terms:

confirmation bias
Dunning-Kruger

P.S. You have some capabilities for logic when you find an argument that matches your desired outcome. But you block out all logic that doesn't concur with your confirmation bias. And this is what causes you to be so foolish. Pride comes right before the fall, and n00bs who bought Bitcoin in 2012 are ripe for this overconfidence myopia. Whereas, I have actual domain experience that allows me to work through many details and form a big picture based on correlating a lot of data which you have even admitted that you chose to ignore.

P.S.S. YOU DISRESPECTFUL ASSHOLE. Don't you know that proper etiquette in Bitcointalk.org is not refer to people by their first name if they have chosen to use a pseudonym? Do I violate you that way here? What is your first and last name? What is your physical or website address (you have mine)?

[vokain]

Seeing as it's information revealed in a public and decently high-profile bankruptcy case anyway: Dr. Marc A. Lowe from California.

http://marcalowemd.weebly.com/about-dr-lowe.html

[cypherdoc]

if you've been reading my posts recently you'll know i feel that is a fundamental misunderstanding by you devs.  you view the full node as the fundamental unit of the system whereas i feel it is the user.  my view is supported by phenoms like Uber, AirBnb, Facebook and just about every other successful internet company out there who scrambled to scarf up users as fast as they could before regulations kicked in or before their competitors could react.  that way the gvt couldn't very well say no to all their same constituents who voted them in who were also using these new services.  

You don't understand the fundamental difference. Uber, AirBnb, etc. want to be regulated businesses that are protectorates of the state. They just want to get big before that happens. The regulations that are written around their businesses (by or in collaboration with their lobbyists) can then be used as a moat to keep others out, protecting their profit margins.

That model doesn't apply to Bitcoin. At all.

Really? You can't see it? At all, says you?

I'll spell  it out then. Bitcoin simply needs to get into the hands of and be used by as many individuals around the world to best protect itself from gvt regulation and outright oppression. By constricting it with 1MB blocks causing unconfirmed TX's and generalized clogging of the system as shown in the Stress Test and the Trade Block data this is happening now. Even if you disagree, its intuitively what will happen. New and existing users will just stop using Bitcoin.

That is clearly analogous to the examples I gave. Understand now?

[cypherdoc]

Seeing as it's information revealed in a public and decently high-profile bankruptcy case anyway: Dr. Marc A. Lowe from California.

Since you're always trying to push the bounds of you appearing to be fair and since you are in the same public case, why aren't you revealing your own identity? Or are you just trying to harass me? .

[vokain]

Seeing as it's information revealed in a public and decently high-profile bankruptcy case anyway: Dr. Marc A. Lowe from California.

Since you're always trying to push the bounds of you appearing to be fair and since you are in the same public case, why aren't you revealing your own identity? Or are you just trying to harass me? .

See: left

And you did it first in this thread :p

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11554258;topicseen#msg11554258