Bitcoin Forum
July 27, 2017, 04:56:23 PM *
News: BIP91 seems stable: there's probably only slightly increased risk of confirmations disappearing. You should still prepare for Aug 1.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 [1478] 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1939988 times)
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 07:37:33 PM
 #29541


I score this for Mike.

He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.


Hearn has always been quite brilliant about this stuff and much more far sighted than most.  Not only that but he has demonstrated the energy and ability to make his visions come at least close to reality.  (No shit about this, BTW.)

I do hope that people analyze the path forward and make the decision which is best for them about which fork to follow.if they have much choice in the matter.  By now the various visions for the future are much more defined than they were even half a year ago so there is no excuse for people not to put up or shut up.  Fork it soon please!

I will mention again that I am willing to entertain a proof-of-burn to migrate to a solution which holds to and enhances the aspects of Bitcoin which appealed to me when I first got into it.  What would be groovy would be to do it in such a way that the XT folks could re-mine the things.  This would be good to get more people more interested in XT and jump on that bandwagon (and hopefully stop stinking up ours.)



Can you please explain "proof-of burn"?

"remine the things"?

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1501174583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501174583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501174583
Reply with quote  #2

1501174583
Report to moderator
1501174583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501174583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501174583
Reply with quote  #2

1501174583
Report to moderator
1501174583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501174583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501174583
Reply with quote  #2

1501174583
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 07:39:28 PM
 #29542

If you would believe reddit, everyone is running an XT node right about now

http://xtnodes.com/

 Cheesy

1.5 percent.




what, no link?  you have this bad habit of seeing support for your arguments where there is none.  for example; Todd has 0 pts while Gavin has 20 upvotes and MOA is just off in his own thuggish world.  i'd bet Todd has even downvotes for this by now.

plus, we already know the 5 largest miners CAN'T do this attack b/c they happen to be in China and behind the GFC.  whoops; another failed simulation based on incorrect assumptions.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2015, 07:40:00 PM
 #29543


"1.5 percent."  I LOL'ed.   Cheesy

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
July 30, 2015, 07:41:59 PM
 #29544

what, no link?

Click the pic Grandpa.   Smiley

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 07:43:19 PM
 #29545

Quote
To be clear, this is one of 3+ possible proposals in the works among Blockstream developers. There is no "party line" where the company can tell the developers what they should believe.

There is a lot of merit to Pieter's draft BIP. We should openly discuss it in public alongside the other draft BIP's.

Others are in favor of an entirely different approach to increasing the block size that would more in line with actual transaction demand while making no guesses about what things will look like in the future. This proposal is a bit more complex and is currently under development. I'm personally working on getting this stuff written down so it would be easier for everyone to understand, to enable developing this approach with the global developer community.

Some hope the drama can calm down to allow for a return to a constructive, collaborative technical process as is common in Open Source development. The recent environment of incivility and personal attacks has led them to be highly reluctant to agree to any controversial changes while under duress. A meta-solution in favor of bringing professionalism and academic discipline to the questions surrounding Bitcoin Scalability is currently under proposal between developers, academics and commercial stakeholders. Hopefully an announcement about this will be ready by early next week.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f5yyr/block_size_according_to_technological_growth_by/ctlw6zx

#teamblockstream

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 07:48:02 PM
 #29546

for example; Todd has 0 pts while Gavin has 20 upvotes and MOA is just off in his own thuggish world.  i'd bet Todd has even downvotes for this by now.

I CAN'T!!!  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 08:05:54 PM
 #29547

So some carefulness is not wasted.  We will succeed simply by not failing.  The seeds of success are sown into the fabric of the Bitcoin code and architecture.

No, there is competition from altcoins to consider. If we leave 99% of the market on the table because of ultraconservatism about blocksize, we let an altcoin have all that, and Bitcoin gets swept by the wayside. And guess which one ends up more decentralized.

The supposed conservatism or carefulness in keeping the 1MB cap (or growing it only slowly) is entirely illusory. The only position that can conceivably be called conservative is one where the blocksize cap is set as high as is likely to be feasible. The conservative option isn't "do nothing." The conservative option is to set the cap almost as high as we think any competitor will be able to feasibly do so. The network effect will take care of the slop factor, but not if that slop factor is a Texas mile because we didn't even bother aiming.

Quote
Patience...  Bitcoin is still in beta, its so young.  Lets give it the chance to grow up without breaking it along the way.

Over-patience is the same as breaking it. The result is the same because competition is ever-present. Network effect means small mistakes and sub-optimalities are forgiven, and often even substantial ones, but gigantic ones cannot be. An altcoin with orders of magnitude bigger block capabilities, able to scale on the fly because there is no limit, and experiencing no problems because the conjectured issues turned out to be frivolous...that's a tough cookie for the network effect to swallow.

No one cares about an altcoin boasting 5x Bitcoin's capacity...because it's not Bitcoin. But if it boasts 100x Bitcoin's capacity, that's a game-changer. We have to at least get in the ballpark. Watching from the sidelines is not going to cut it, and I refuse to call that in any way conservative, patient, or careful.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 08:20:53 PM
 #29548

...
Network effect means small mistakes and sub-optimalities are forgiven, and often even substantial ones, but gigantic ones cannot be. An altcoin with orders of magnitude bigger block capabilities, able to scale on the fly because there is no limit, and experiencing no problems because the conjectured issues turned out to be frivolous...that's a tough cookie for the network effect to swallow.
...


Well said.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 08:21:06 PM
 #29549

1. Hard block size unlimited.

2. Accept as valid blocks of size up to X for the time being, X decided by consensus amongst miners and developers and individuals in the community, re the current block size discussion.

3. Produce max Y size blocks for the time being, value of Y (less than X) decided by a (per def benevolent, since it is voluntary) cartel of miners.

4. Each individual miner produces blocks of max size Z, Z decided egoistically to maximize profit, to avoid technical problems and to minimize risk of orphaning, dependent on his trust of the real consensus of the previous points.

tl;dr no hard limit.


it all works so long as the size is a rule set by operation cooperationand not collusion, nodes and miners should be free to break from the pack.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 08:21:33 PM
 #29550


You said "everyone", the link you posted said 93 of 6199. What is your problem? Tourettes syndrome?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 08:23:53 PM
 #29551

I'm curious why some people in this thread support the removal of a blocksize cap when Gavin himself suggests this is not conceivable.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f5yyr/block_size_according_to_technological_growth_by/ctlqzs7

your reading too much into iCE propaganda, I think Gavin has had bad ideas, that doesn't make all his ideas bad, I'd like to think everyone here looks at the facts for everything and doesn't just follow blindly based on history.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 30, 2015, 08:43:47 PM
 #29552

You said "everyone", the link you posted said 93 of 6199. What is your problem? Tourettes syndrome?


Are you seriously that dense.

I am the one who said everyone.

And it was a joke, referring to the Mike&Gavin army on reddit apparently all "switching my node to XT". From the echo chamber over there it would seem "the community" is near consensus  Grin

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
July 30, 2015, 10:23:26 PM
 #29553

You said "everyone", the link you posted said 93 of 6199. What is your problem? Tourettes syndrome?


Are you seriously that dense.

I am the one who said everyone.

And it was a joke, referring to the Mike&Gavin army on reddit apparently all "switching my node to XT". From the echo chamber over there it would seem "the community" is near consensus  Grin

So I was confused about who said what. Both nonsense, please consider using a sarc end tag.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 30, 2015, 11:50:07 PM
 #29554

I'm curious why some people in this thread support the removal of a blocksize cap when Gavin himself suggests this is not conceivable.
Not everyone is susceptible to the Hegelian dialectic that's being employed here.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2015, 01:38:25 AM
 #29555

I'm curious why some people in this thread support the removal of a blocksize cap when Gavin himself suggests this is not conceivable.
Not everyone is susceptible to the Hegelian dialectic that's being employed here.


(Fake) Problem - full blocks

(Astroturf) Reaction - "ZOMG Bitcoin is choking to death"

(In-Q-Tel) Solution - Gavinblocks

Hidden variable - trade off between TPS and security

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 03:41:39 AM
 #29556

estimates are going lower and lower:

Prepare for gold prices to plunge...as low as $350

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/30/investing/gold-prices-could-drop-to-350/index.html?category=home
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2212


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 04:03:14 AM
 #29557

estimates are going lower and lower:

Prepare for gold prices to plunge...as low as $350

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/30/investing/gold-prices-could-drop-to-350/index.html?category=home

Ya, CNN told me to go all in in Bitcoin in 2011.  Best advice I ever got.  I don't remember if it was them who had my buying PMs back around 2001.  Probably it was since they are so awsome and have made so many average Joes so much money with their great advice over the years.


OROBTC
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 04:13:25 AM
 #29558

...

cypherdoc

At least you, TPTB and Martin Armstrong agree on something (price of gold going way down).  Smiley  How unusual, how utterly rare...

Must be a Blue Moon happening soon or something.  Or TEOTWAWKI?
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 31, 2015, 06:19:37 AM
 #29559

there is competition from altcoins to consider. If we leave 99% of the market on the table because of ultraconservatism about blocksize, we let an altcoin have all that, and Bitcoin gets swept by the wayside. And guess which one ends up more decentralized.

This important comment made me think that it's a good time to review just how Bitcoin has fared against the altcoins since a useful comparison has been made possible by coinmarketcap. Using the Wayback machine I got one data-point (aggregate values in USD) for each month as close to the 9th (first one) as possible. The chart below shows Bitcoin's monetary base (or market cap) as a percentage of all cryptocurrency excluding Ripple.



There is a very slight trend down (black), exacerbated by the recent LTC ramp, probably pre-halving noise as smooth says. I have shown the y-axis from 0% to avoid the scarier looking trend when base-lined at 80%.

This chart is interesting because it shows that despite the acrimonious 1MB debate it is not yet having a serious effect on price, and similarly the 1MB is not yet crippling user volumes and driving up usage (and therefore enhanced value) of alternative crypto.

Yesterday, we had a BIP [77? 103?] from Pieter, which is extremely welcome and the first official solution from the 1MBers in Core Dev. Unfortunately, this BIP pursues minimal change, with 2MB blocks only in 2021 and 10MB blocks (effectively the same capacity as Dogecoin today), in 2030. Personally, I think this will leave a severe bottleneck in Bitcoin throughput by about Q2/Q3 2016 and the major risk of a sharp change down in trend in the chart above.

sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
July 31, 2015, 08:46:15 AM
 #29560

Fully parsed, what you are claiming is
Quote
The simple solution is to remove the artificial cap hard fork Bitcoin.
Do you realize how naive that makes you look?

If you truly understood your own position then you would argue it instead of just railing at people who might have an opposing view. Call me some more names, it's really helping the credibility of your argument.

What *is* bloat? (apart from the intentional choice of hyperbolic word). Can you put a value on what is considered bloated? Can you confidently say that your idea of what constitute bloat is some world wide standard?

You put words in my mouth, then claim those invented words make me look stupid. In fact this only serves to make you look even more desperate. if I didn't understand the maxim, I would not be able to point out just how incoherent your thought process must be if you are attempting to equate feature-set with size-of-data. I understand the difference between feature-set and data-size, do you? I'll bet you do. So, don't even for one second pretend you think that systems with more data are inherently more complex than systems with less data.

Do you truly believe they are the same thing or are you again being disingenuous in order to try and maintain your tenuous argument that effectively 'changing a config setting' is somehow more complicated than developing a whole new platform and all the interfaces necessary to communicate.

Its about as elegant as your debating skill....

Fully parsed your argument against Gavin's fix for CVE-2013-2292 seems to be, don't do it because it increases complexity. Again disingenuous or actually not very smart?

Then finally you try to create further confusion between the feature-set of software vs its deployment. To be clear, what is being kept simple is the software. I'm interested to know though just exactly what it is that is complex about the hard fork. I can think of other words that might apply - contentious, unpredictable even undesirable - depending on your viewpoint - but not complex. You put the new release up, and those that want it deploy it. Those that don't do not.

Interestingly those words that apply to the hard fork, could quite easily be used to describe intentionally restricting transaction growth by refusing to update the max block size. So in that respect both 'solutions' are equal.

In another very important respect, they are not equal. Releasing a version of bitcoin core with an increased block size allows for true consensus from the user base. Refusing to do so, is enforcing the view of some core-devs. That's what is despicable.

Thankfully in time, once the details have been ironed out and devs eventually accept some form of block size increase schedule (and they will, however much you cling to your delusion) the hard fork can happen in core, and then the miners can have the final say in what goes forward. If everyone sticks on 1MB coin then you get your wish! I'll send you a cookie, iced with the words "Well done you!".

I think though, that is what you are terrified of. That you know there is actually no way in hell the block size will stay at 1MB, but you are so married to your position that you can't let go and will say anything to defend it. It comes across in your posts.

"Truly understood?"  The True Scotsman called and asks you return his kilt ASAP.   Tongue

Fret and mewl more about being called mean names, your endless concern-meta scoldings and finger-wagging process objections (we already know you are afraid to "fight features") are really helping the credibility of your argument.   Cheesy

The only way to remove the 1MB cap is via a hard fork.  Thus my parsing of your absurd assertion regarding "The Simple SolutionTM" is logically correct.

To quote Hearn, "don't pretend any of this stuff is obvious."

You asked "what is bloat?"  Bloat is Gavincoin, with its undesirable sacrifice of security for (the feature of) MOAR TPS.

I made no generic claims about whether "systems with more data are inherently more complex than systems with less data."

That depends on the inheritances (ie data dependencies or non-dependencies) of the system in question.  Usenet?  No.  Bitcoin?  Yes.  Your retreat into generalities is noted, with all due scorn.   Wink

Raising the block size, if done responsibly with a view to present entailments (100k max tx) and forward implications (Future Gavin vs 2015 Gavin), is not as obvious as 'changing a config setting.'  Again, "don't pretend any of this stuff is obvious."  DoS blocks are only one example of why Bitcoin is only now scaling to 1MB, and why massive order-of-magnitude jumps are hubris.

I want to enable Layer 2+ using the minimum of additional functionality in Layer 1.  You want to stuff all of Layer 2+ into Layer 1.  It doesn't take a PhD in linguistics to see who is proposing bloat.   Grin

Funny how you try to throw the term "eventually" in my face, when I've already said I agree a block size will happen in exactly that timespan.  Quick, pout moar about what a horrible person I am for agreeing with Satoshi!

Layer 1 and Layer 2 has nothing to do with software features, its an arbitrary economic division that you are using to try and confuse the issue. (Or are confused by?).

I think block size increase should be done in good time to stop all of this forced LN/sidechain/alt-coin nonsense you are pimping. If those things are good, and wanted then they will stand on there own merit. Whereas you think we should do it later, after rome is burning.

What is your motive for this?

Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU) || http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
Pages: « 1 ... 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 [1478] 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!