Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 02:35:29 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803426 times)
tabnloz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 793


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 12:55:55 AM
 #29641


i dont like the idea as it breaks the social contract of bitcoin, but this discussion needs to be had as the economy and infrastructure grows, if only to do away with it once and for all. The stigma surrounding deflation is already hyped up by the Fed's actions, I hope bitcoin can do away with the bogeyman.
1480732529
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732529

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732529
Reply with quote  #2

1480732529
Report to moderator
1480732529
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732529

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732529
Reply with quote  #2

1480732529
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2015, 02:09:33 AM
 #29642

frap.doc is desperate at this point  Angry

Thank goodness for small miracles.

Can you imagine how insufferably smug Frap.doc would be at this point, were XT nodes dominating the network (rather than being a lulzy comedy sideshow footnote provided by Gavinsta dead-enders)?

Frap.doc is so 1337 - a true 1%'er, by income *and* by choice of Bitcoin node.

Szaboshi Backamoto, meditating in his Fortress of Solitude, is most assuredly vexed by the mighty 87 XT (out of 5954 total) nodes.   Grin Grin Grin




☐ Not REKT
☑ REKT





☐ Not REKT
☐ REKT
☑ DOUBLE REKT

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


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


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


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

"Hard forks cannot be co
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 03:10:37 AM
 #29643

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.

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

To get in the ballpark where some people here would wanna go you'd need 100000X anyway.

I also happen to think it would be a mistake, from where you sit, to pretend that people involved are "watching from the sidelines".

This post was strangely out of character for you I should say. To read references to alt-coins competition from you was a surprise! It seems more than most here you have championed the importance of the economic majority and its interest in respecting the ledger. Well unless you refer to the "spin-offs" idea, it seems out of question for me that the ledger would ever move to another chain that is not secured by the longest proof-of-work.


"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
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 03:40:46 AM
 #29644

This post was strangely out of character for you I should say. To read references to alt-coins competition from you was a surprise! It seems more than most here you have championed the importance of the economic majority and its interest in respecting the ledger. Well unless you refer to the "spin-offs" idea, it seems out of question for me that the ledger would ever move to another chain that is not secured by the longest proof-of-work.


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.

Seemed completely lucid and reasonable to me. Being lulled into complacency and justifying it with 1MB ubermensch dogma does not.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 05:40:48 AM
 #29645

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.

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

To get in the ballpark where some people here would wanna go you'd need 100000X anyway.

I also happen to think it would be a mistake, from where you sit, to pretend that people involved are "watching from the sidelines".

This post was strangely out of character for you I should say. To read references to alt-coins competition from you was a surprise! It seems more than most here you have championed the importance of the economic majority and its interest in respecting the ledger. Well unless you refer to the "spin-offs" idea, it seems out of question for me that the ledger would ever move to another chain that is not secured by the longest proof-of-work.

Spinoffs work as an altcoin defence provided we're talking about Bitcoin vs. altcoins in the context of the Bitcoin community. But as long as you have a gigantic mass market still largely unfamiliar with Bitcoin, an "altcoin" (not an altcoin from their perspective, which is the key point) can take over if it can pull off the miracle of dramatically outpacing Bitcoin's adoption rate.

For elaboration of this aspect of the argument, see:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423570#msg11423570
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423612#msg11423612
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423877#msg11423877
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423961#msg11423961 (best summary here)

That miracle becomes a lot easier if Bitcoin gets artificially hobbled way below its potential. Now the question of whether we could have 100MB blocks now without wrecking decentralization, and are leaving all that extra capacity on the table for "Supercoin" to come and grab, remains up in the air. Surely intelligent people can disagree on where exactly the real capacity limit lies, and probably by orders of magnitude at that, considering all the optimizations we have yet to think of and all the new brainpower that the next wave of exponential growth will bring in.

The correction I'd like to make is to the idea that we can afford to keep Bitcoin potentially one or more orders of magnitude below its capacity under the assumption that we have all the time in the world to succeed. If you believe we are definitely very near the real practical limit, then this argument wouldn't apply. But how many people in the smaller blocks camp are so sure of that? A lot of the Core devs seem to simply be concerned about what they would admit are theoretical issues, with the stance, "Why take unnecessary risks?" My point here is that some risk is necessary.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 05:45:33 AM
 #29646

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.

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

To get in the ballpark where some people here would wanna go you'd need 100000X anyway.

I also happen to think it would be a mistake, from where you sit, to pretend that people involved are "watching from the sidelines".

This post was strangely out of character for you I should say. To read references to alt-coins competition from you was a surprise! It seems more than most here you have championed the importance of the economic majority and its interest in respecting the ledger. Well unless you refer to the "spin-offs" idea, it seems out of question for me that the ledger would ever move to another chain that is not secured by the longest proof-of-work.

Spinoffs work as an altcoin defence provided we're talking about Bitcoin vs. altcoins in the context of the Bitcoin community. But as long as you have a gigantic mass market still largely unfamiliar with Bitcoin, an "altcoin" (not an altcoin from their perspective, which is the key point) can take over if it can pull off the miracle of dramatically outpacing Bitcoin's adoption rate.

For elaboration of this aspect of the argument, see:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423570#msg11423570
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423612#msg11423612
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423877#msg11423877
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423961#msg11423961 (best summary here)

That miracle becomes a lot easier if Bitcoin gets artificially hobbled way below its potential. Now the question of whether we could have 100MB blocks now without wrecking decentralization, and are leaving all that extra capacity on the table for "Supercoin" to come and grab, remains up in the air. Surely intelligent people can disagree on where exactly the real capacity limit lies, and probably by orders of magnitude at that, considering all the optimizations we have yet to think of and all the new brainpower that the next wave of exponential growth will bring in.

The correction I'd like to make is to the idea that we can afford to keep Bitcoin potentially one or more orders of magnitude below its capacity under the assumption that we have all the time in the world to succeed.

and as many have pointed out, esp awemany, we can always soft fork back down to the real limit if we overshoot.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 05:48:22 AM
 #29647

And I'm actually a fan of just getting good at hard forking, so that Bitcoin can be more exploratory with trying various things, always of course only those extremely careful changes that the market supports. But when you have that option, you can afford to merely raise the blocksize to 2MB, then 3MB, then 5MB, etc. in small increments and see if there is an issue, then fork back down if needed. That seems like the ultimate answer to these controversies.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 06:29:32 AM
 #29648

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 06:36:00 AM
 #29649

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 06:54:48 AM
 #29650

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.

No, you missed the point entirely. I don't think an altcoin running the same technology as Bitcoin, can deliver 100x the capacity.

To do that would require something different and we don't even know what it is.

As far as modest increases, in line with hardware (mostly bandwidth since that seems to be the slowest-progressing at the moment, but I'm not sure that is stable), I think Bitcoin should do that, so there is no room for an altcoin there.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 07:15:46 AM
 #29651

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.

No, you missed the point entirely. I don't think an altcoin running the same technology as Bitcoin, can deliver 100x the capacity.

To do that would require something different and we don't even know what it is.

As far as modest increases, in line with hardware (mostly bandwidth since that seems to be the slowest-progressing at the moment, but I'm not sure that is stable), I think Bitcoin should do that, so there is no room for an altcoin there.


So you are in the largeblock (1MB+) camp. Did I understand you correctly? If so, I think you should go for 1MB+ blocks, not 1MB blocks.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 07:21:12 AM
 #29652

I just want bigger blocks. Hard fork, hard fork to infinity with soft limit back to 2 MB, round keg into a square hole, rewrite the system in fortran, ip over avian carriers. Implement the evil bit. Whatever it takes.

If people mostly can agree on hard max blocksize of 1100000 bytes, I applaud that too. It should be quite safe.


smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 07:23:15 AM
 #29653

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.

No, you missed the point entirely. I don't think an altcoin running the same technology as Bitcoin, can deliver 100x the capacity.

To do that would require something different and we don't even know what it is.

As far as modest increases, in line with hardware (mostly bandwidth since that seems to be the slowest-progressing at the moment, but I'm not sure that is stable), I think Bitcoin should do that, so there is no room for an altcoin there.


So you are in the largeblock (1MB+) camp. Did I understand you correctly? If so, I think you should go for 1MB+ blocks, not 1MB blocks.

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 07:46:16 AM
 #29654

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.

No, you missed the point entirely. I don't think an altcoin running the same technology as Bitcoin, can deliver 100x the capacity.

To do that would require something different and we don't even know what it is.

As far as modest increases, in line with hardware (mostly bandwidth since that seems to be the slowest-progressing at the moment, but I'm not sure that is stable), I think Bitcoin should do that, so there is no room for an altcoin there.


So you are in the largeblock (1MB+) camp. Did I understand you correctly? If so, I think you should go for 1MB+ blocks, not 1MB blocks.

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.

Once u start u can't stop
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 07:54:49 AM
 #29655

Support from an unexpected camp:

Within our mandate, the bitcoin community is ready to do whatever it takes to expand the bitcoin blocksize. Even if we have to implement the evil bit. Believe me, it will be enough.

Mario Draghi
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 08:14:27 AM
 #29656

Support from an unexpected camp:

Within our mandate, the bitcoin community is ready to do whatever it takes to expand the bitcoin blocksize. Even if we have to implement the evil bit. Believe me, it will be enough.

Mario Draghi


sarcasm?

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 08:17:28 AM
 #29657

Support from an unexpected camp:

Within our mandate, the bitcoin community is ready to do whatever it takes to expand the bitcoin blocksize. Even if we have to implement the evil bit. Believe me, it will be enough.

Mario Draghi


sarcasm?

Yes.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 01:43:45 PM
 #29658

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.


For the record this is mostly my POV as well.

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 02:04:48 PM
 #29659

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.


For the record this is mostly my POV as well.

Then  shut the hell up with your MP pronouncements and references to crap articles like yesterday's.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 02:15:41 PM
 #29660

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.


For the record this is mostly my POV as well.

Then  shut the hell up with your MP pronouncements and references to crap articles like yesterday's.

 Shocked

You woke up in a bad mood today? Your maid refused to make you breakfast? 1% life must be stressful heh  Angry

I certainly won't "shut the hell up" when retards like you are championing lifting the block size limit entirely as some sort of rational opinion.


"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
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 ... 1560 »
  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!