Fork off

[colinistheman]

What does Mircea Popescu have to lose by this proposed fork? It's obvious by his reaction that he feels this would be very negative for him, but why?

And I agree, Mircea's attitude and comments about his budget are a big turnoff.

That's like saying "I've lost the fight, so I'm going to go in with my wallet and buy my victory since my logic and arguments didn't prevail."

That's also how the Federal Reserve runs things. They use their control of money as their only power.

Big turn-off. And tyrannical.

[1715480753]

1715480753

[1715480753]

1715480753

[1715480753]

1715480753

[1715480753]

1715480753

[Bit_Happy]

This thread may prove to be interesting. I'm in! Anybody else watching to see how this unfolds?

It's already better than last week's NFL playoff games, I'm ready to see what happens next...

[kodtycoon]

This thread may prove to be interesting. I'm in! Anybody else watching to see how this unfolds?

It's already better than last week's NFL playoff games, I'm ready to see what happens next...

watching too

[fat buddah]

nothing will happen. Bitcoiners have proven themselves to be ignorant assholes thinking they are better and more educated. Quite a few on the thread. So run with your fork, we don't give a single fuck.

[Rannasha]

What does Mircea Popescu have to lose by this proposed fork? It's obvious by his reaction that he feels this would be very negative for him, but why?

MP has the idea that Bitcoin should be restricted to some arbitrary "enlightened elite" centered around him. The combination of delusions of grandeur and a small group of worshippers who take his word as gospel enforce this idea. The notion of Bitcoin being adapted to accommodate a higher transaction rate and therefore be more accessible for mass use is completely contrary to his views. So it's no surprise he doesn't like it.

[knight22]

nothing will happen. Bitcoiners have proven themselves to be ignorant assholes thinking they are better and more educated. Quite a few on the thread. So run with your fork, we don't give a single fuck.

You are free to be left behind.

[Flashman]

Unnecessary and gratuitous bloat, such as spam or uses such as the former MO of satoshi dice, should be suppressed.

However, this is to preserve the limited transaction bandwidth for "useful" transfers. The reason we need to do this, is that should adoption swing upward quickly, tx WILL be throttled, and get backed up, this is highly undesirable. It is not a glass, but reinforced concrete ceiling on adoption that the network can support. Either bitcoin will be abandoned en-masse right then, or tx fees will skyrocket in competition for this limited resource.

Raising the maximum block size does not immediately bloat the blockchain, many blocks will be under this size, most of the time for quite a while they will be around the current max of 1MB, which if you cared to look at blocks found, is not the size of all blocks currently.

If you are worrying about the time when 20MB per block is filled, you are worrying that bitcoin will have 20x more transactions, an increase from the currently throttle of approx 6 per second to around 120 per second. If you are worrying that bitcoin will have 20x more transactions, then you are worrying about it having many more users.

IMO, the only reason not to support this is if you are not in favor of increased adoption. The only other reason not to support it, is if you have CODE that does the same job without requiring a hard fork. I guess the other reason is "principals" that for some reason are not negotiable enough that you would find yourself standing in the path of an oncoming express train rather than get off the track. The express train is not the fork, it's the tx limit rapidly approaching.

[BitcoinNational]

Let's do the math here.

LTC = mostly China holders
BTC = mostly Westerners (but mostly traded in Shanghai, HongKong)

China says, "Nice fork, but we don't Accept" ... "Oh litecoin prices through the roof, sorry did I do that?"

Bitcoin may have been forked in the past.  All that was need was to call Pirate@40 and MarktheKarp and say install this version.  You guys are nuts if you think all the international exchange houses are going to be told what to do on a supposed 'decentralized' coin.

This baby is gonna rip.

[Lauda]

not against progress at all.
I'm against forking in favour of a bloat - bloating the chain is no progress.

Scalability should be possible to achieve in other ways. I refuse liteversion - i want to be able to store the chain on my system with 100gb max space in the forseeable future. What you do is enforcing centralisation and incapacitate the user.

Has there been a money-price set up for the person providing the most smart solution or is bitcoin only one dev and decisionmaker and that's it?

You make the impression as if you had a decent notch too much marketcap and believe me, this bearmarket will continue throughout the year because bitcoin has a  host of problems with the rewards and the sellpressure they put on the market. Your focus is on the wrong things and your priorities are out of whack.

Bitcoin is some megalomaniac shitcoin. You can't even hold your value, what do you care about scalability? Nobody wants to use a coin which can't hold the value anyways.

Fortunately we don't  have to use it.

So you're saying that the increase in block limit would cause bloat?  
Bloat is being caused by other things, and keeping the block size limit there won't help fight off bloat at all.

If you are worrying about the time when 20MB per block is filled, you are worrying that bitcoin will have 20x more transactions, an increase from the currently throttle of approx 6 per second to around 120 per second. If you are worrying that bitcoin will have 20x more transactions, then you are worrying about it having many more users.

Voila.

[fat buddah]

nothing will happen. Bitcoiners have proven themselves to be ignorant assholes thinking they are better and more educated. Quite a few on the thread. So run with your fork, we don't give a single fuck.

You are free to be left behind.

absolutely no fear of missing out

[colinistheman]

One thing to note is that Mircea is highly critical of Andreas Antonopoulous and Gavin Andresen. "Critical" as in, trying to make them look bad and calling them names.

I for one hold Andreas in very high regard and do not appreciate that.
And I like Gavin too. I think they are both doing their best to aid the Bitcoin space.
Andreas talked to the Canadian senate and encouraged them to delay regulations for crying out loud.

Mircea says: "Andreas Antonopoulous thought he was very important before his untimely death."  (This statement doesn't even make sense as Andreas is more popular than ever)
Mircea says: "Gavin Andresen, known principally for his costumed clown services, where he goes to various conferences dressed as this or that for the amusement of the participants."

What the...?

Mircea is like a rebel tyrant.

Source: footnotes on http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/#footnote_1_59124

[Flashman]

Let's do the math here.

LTC = mostly China holders
BTC = mostly Westerners (but mostly traded in Shanghai, HongKong)

China says, "Nice fork, but we don't Accept" ... "Oh litecoin prices through the roof, sorry did I do that?"

Let's do the math here.

LTC = mostly China holders
BTC = mostly Westerners (but mostly traded in Shanghai, HongKong)

China says, "Nice fork, but we don't Accept" ... "Oh litecoin prices through the roof, sorry did I do that?"

It is a possibility that the MP argument is a virtually literal strawman, atop a bonfire, to fuel a flame war that drives up his LTC holdings.

[colinistheman]

What does Mircea Popescu have to lose by this proposed fork? It's obvious by his reaction that he feels this would be very negative for him, but why?

MP has the idea that Bitcoin should be restricted to some arbitrary "enlightened elite" centered around him. The combination of delusions of grandeur and a small group of worshippers who take his word as gospel enforce this idea. The notion of Bitcoin being adapted to accommodate a higher transaction rate and therefore be more accessible for mass use is completely contrary to his views. So it's no surprise he doesn't like it.

But that doesn't help him, it hurts him. Wider adoption helps him. Doesn't make sense.

[jonald_fyookball]

My understanding is that Bitcoin MUST fork to
increase the block limit.  There are ways to
postpone it, but no ways to avoid it.

This Romanian dude gives no good argument
against a VALID fork such as this.

[Rannasha]

What does Mircea Popescu have to lose by this proposed fork? It's obvious by his reaction that he feels this would be very negative for him, but why?

MP has the idea that Bitcoin should be restricted to some arbitrary "enlightened elite" centered around him. The combination of delusions of grandeur and a small group of worshippers who take his word as gospel enforce this idea. The notion of Bitcoin being adapted to accommodate a higher transaction rate and therefore be more accessible for mass use is completely contrary to his views. So it's no surprise he doesn't like it.

But that doesn't help him, it hurts him. Wider adoption helps him. Doesn't make sense.

I never said that there was any logic behind his argument

[balu2]

I do believe there must be numerous other ways to achive scalability. How many brains have been working on the problem so far?
What are the options?

You are making an ass out of yourself if you say there is only one option because there is always more options.
I don't even see scalability as a pressing issue. With this rapid pricedecline who should care?
Then you have alts. The industry is actually selfregulating.

Bitcoin blocks full, higher fees? Ok, people go over and use doge or another coin then. Et voila: everyone can transact again. The scalability-problem is a pseudo-problem. It does not occure in real life because people just go to the next chain once bitcoin is overloaded.

Your problem is your megalomania - and that megalomania will be your point of fail.
 

Scalability is a problem which is non-existant thanks to altcoins.

[tvbcof]

140 TPS is still hopelessly short of what is necessary to achieve the laughable pipe-dream of running a sizable exchange economy on native Bitcoin.

The only thing 20MB will do is drive yet another tranche of independent supporters out of the system and further consolidate infrastructure support to the bigger players.  That is probably the point of the exercise since there would be little other impact.

Seems like Gavin is desperate for this to happen in spite of the fact that transaction fees have still not been induced to be a factor 6 years on from the blockchain birth.  I would suppose that the desperation is driven by good progress on the sidechains front.  When sidechains are proven out (which is likely to happen even before the 1MB becomes a 'problem') then entities who want to exert control will have no excuse but to make their sidechain successful rather than to forge the native Blockchain into a form of their liking which they can easily do with a near monopoly on infrastructure and good cooperation with regulators.

I never thought that Gavin was a bad guy, but have long held that his is simply not equipped for the job.  I'll suspect that he'll argue (and believe) that he is forced into this bloat-it because larger actors are deferring on investment until it happens.  In this way it is justifiable to bloat before it's needed technically.

To me Bitcoin is defined by the people I trust from watching the ins and outs over 4 years.  It so happens that many of the folks I trust (and some that I don't because they are new to me and whatever) have grouped 'Blockstream' banner.  I'd add to that list of trusted and known individuals Garzik and Todd.  If a consensus among these folks is that 20 MB (or 10 MB or whatever) develops, I'll consider their suggestions to be 'mainline'.

If Popescu chooses to wage war in fragmented environment and can demonstrate some potential to come out victorious I'll likely put my resources behind his efforts.  This exclusively because whatever his motivations might be, his basic end goal and my own seem to align.

[knight22]

I do believe there must be numerous other ways to achive scalability. How many brains have been working on the problem so far?
What are the options?

You are making an ass out of yourself if you say there is only one option because there is always more options.
I don't even see scalability as a pressing issue. With this rapid pricedecline who should care?
Then you have alts. The industry is actually selfregulating.

Bitcoin blocks full, higher fees? Ok, people go over and use doge or another coin then. Et voila: everyone can transact again. The scalability-problem is a pseudo-problem. It does not occure in real life because people just go to the next chain once bitcoin is overloaded.

Your problem is your megalomania - and that megalomania will be your point of fail.
 

Scalability is a problem which is non-existant thanks to altcoins.

The price is irrelevant to scalability, what matter is this https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

And using an alt is in NO way a solution. It would be like saying that we should just have used separate internets because the first one couldn't scale. Ridiculous idea.

[DeathAndTaxes]

140 TPS is still hopelessly short of what is necessary to achieve the laughable pipe-dream of running a sizable exchange economy on native Bitcoin.

140 tps is 3x greater than PayPal and about 10x the FedWire (US Bank wire network) system.

[balu2]

It would be like saying that we should just have used separate internets because the first one couldn't scale.

this sentence doesn't make any sense to me

Metaphorical comparisons do not hold any argumentative value ever. Complete bogus.

The  problem doesn't occure because it's selfregulating. Again: Overload on btc chain leads to slower transactions or higher fees. People use litecoin then and in case it's needed they use a third coin too which is likely more advanced in that regard and deals with that problem from the beginning.

So all this discussion is actually unnecessary aswell as your forks and bloats.