Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2020, 11:44:29 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Bitcoin fork proposal by respected Bitcoin lead dev Gavin Andresen, to increase the block size from 1MB to 20MB.
pro
anti
agnostic
DGAF

Pages: « 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 ... 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154258 times)
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1001



View Profile
February 15, 2015, 06:14:38 PM
Last edit: February 15, 2015, 06:32:26 PM by hdbuck
 #1401

If we are changing from a static to a dynamic limit, it ought to be sensitive to the need for increase rather than exponentially increasing.  This could be either too high of a limit (and creating the potential for vastly increasing network costs unsupported by Bitcoin economy), or it could be too low (and we end up back where we are now).
++

Make it scale organically according to need

Buy it, use it, break it, fix it,
Trash it, change it, mail - upgrade it,
Charge it, point it, zoom it, press it,
Snap it, work it, quick - erase it,
Write it, cut it, paste it, save it,
Load it, check it, quick - rewrite it,
Plug it, play it, burn it, rip it,
Drag and drop it, zip - unzip it,
Lock it, fill it, call it, find it,
View it, code it, jam - unlock it,
Surf it, scroll it, pause it, click it,
Cross it, crack it, switch - update it,
Name it, rate it, tune it, print it,
Scan it, send it, fax - rename it,
Touch it, bring it, pay it, watch it,



fork it!
AWARD-WINNING
CRYPTO CASINO
ASKGAMBLERS
PLAYERS CHOICE 2019
PROUD
PARTNER OF
1500+
GAMES
2 MIN
CASH-OUTS
24/7
SUPPORT
100s OF
FREE SPINS
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1044


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 06:14:53 PM
 #1402

I would support (and prefer) a limit that is set every two weeks (along with difficulty) to thrice the load experienced in the previous two weeks (so that the limit remains approximately thrice the actual usage).  That seems more responsive and more likely to survive relatively sudden and extreme changes in usage patterns if something unexpected happens over the course of a few weeks.  At the same time it doesn't permit horrible abuses by attackers unless they mine a significant fraction of all blocks for a long-ish period of time.

Regardless, I support the plan to increase the block limit whether it is done the way I'd prefer it or not.  Gavin's plan, while simplistic, is a MUCH better plan than failing to increase it.

Cryddit
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 06:29:51 PM
 #1403

I would support (and prefer) a limit that is set every two weeks (along with difficulty) to thrice the load experienced in the previous two weeks (so that the limit remains approximately thrice the actual usage).  That seems more responsive and more likely to survive relatively sudden and extreme changes in usage patterns if something unexpected happens over the course of a few weeks.  At the same time it doesn't permit horrible abuses by attackers unless they mine a significant fraction of all blocks for a long-ish period of time.

Regardless, I support the plan to increase the block limit whether it is done the way I'd prefer it or not.  Gavin's plan, while simplistic, is a MUCH better plan than failing to increase it.

Cryddit
I might not be correct here, but its worth clarifying (by others).  I have read some papers thoroughly and some not so much (alas I cannot read everything). My understanding was that you cannot put a market mechanism in place here and especially not at this time (I have a thought about a future possibility that is not relevant at this time). If I understand this all correctly (and keeping in mind there is no bitcoin elite to confirm or deny), such a proposal would be EXACTLY like trying to square a circle (which requires geometry not necessarily of this universe). We can only guess, and put in some form of static (albeit variable) rate.  And then further more there must be a consensus.  This makes the problem very defined, and very simple, although psychologically difficult for each of us to accept.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1079


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 06:39:27 PM
 #1404


I'm pretty much with you on this, though I'm in favor or changing the 1MB limit.  I don't like the proposed solution of 20MB + exponential increase and I would not fork to it (so count me as 'anti' for the poll).  The proposal creates problems.
It is a sort-of simple proposal, (which is in its favor), but I think we can do better.

I'm actually in favor if raising the limit as well under certain conditions:

 - There is a well defined end-goal and a well studied (and obviously, open) path to getting there

 - There is a need based on the above.

It just makes ZERO sense to do a Hail Mary and get a tiny fraction of the way to anything meaningful just because it 'feels' like the right direction.  Bitcoin is already important enough to where this type of thing does not make any sense, and under the quasi-management of the Bitcoin Foundation there is an appalling lack of transparency which totally sucks.  The little bits that do sneak out, like the discussions about 'red-listing' are not very heartening...though they do have a high potential to explain the current direction since increasing the exclusivity of operators is a necessary first step.

We aren't in a crisis, and there may not be a crisis for quite a while.  Even having the horrible circumstance of queueing transactions (this already happens for low/no fee transaction), is not the end of the world for Bitcoin, but it will limit growth and adoption.

So since we have time to improve the proposal, this is what we ought to be doing.

If we are changing from a static to a dynamic limit, it ought to be sensitive to the need for increase rather than exponentially increasing.  This could be either too high of a limit (and creating the potential for vastly increasing network costs unsupported by Bitcoin economy), or it could be too low (and we end up back where we are now).

I would support either a sensitive increase, or a static increase (which just kicks the can down the road but caps the risk), but not a dynamic one that has exponentially increasing risk.

I'm 10-times more negative about dynamic adjustments than I am about simplistic block size for scaling.  Throw in the towel at that point.  They are extraordinarily difficult to get right in the best of circumstances, and that is far from the case in Bitcoinland where everyone and their brother are trying to game the system for fun and profit (as the design correctly anticipates.)

Bitcoin is utterly lacking in any viable feedback mechanisms to make dynamic adjustments tenable.  Just to set fees have struggled mightily with this.  Adding such mechanisms into the mix would necessitate a fairly significant overhaul (my gut sense of things.)  If Bitcoin had some sort of 'benevolent dictator for life' then _maybe_ dynamic feedback would work _sorta_ for a while.  But if Bitcoin had such a thing it would not be Bitcoin.  The window of opportunity for dynamic feedback probably ended at about the time Satoshi announced the whitepaper.  That bird has flown.  The best bet is to address the need by careful design of autonomous semi-auxiliary systems in my opinion.


traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 06:55:06 PM
 #1405


It just makes ZERO sense to do a Hail Mary and get a tiny fraction of the way to anything meaningful just because it 'feels' like the right direction. 
It makes sense if we need a consensus for change though, because for a long period of time, it is going to get more and more difficult to do so.  In fact, we haven't yet shown that its not impossible at this point.

Bitcoin is utterly lacking in any viable feedback mechanisms to make dynamic adjustments tenable.
I suspect this is the problem solved here, but not with any mechanism we can possibly have access to today.

http://szabo.best.vwh.net/scarce.html

Again I could be off, but I seem to be thinking backwards and upside than all of us (which might be useful to have such a different view). Szabo often presents strangely and had to do so because of the difficult material that was not anywhere near relevant in the time he wrote these things.  We can remember he explained smart contracts with elves ringing bells.  

We must not be trapped in our thinking with this problem, we should seek to think outside it and around it...I do not think this problem was come across as it arose, I think it was already well thought out.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 07:40:03 PM
 #1406

I think we should press on.  I think we have exhausted the possibilities, the views, the opinions, etc. In light of the 'evidence' provided, I want to make a suggestion, and then I think we should give our reactions and opinions to the possibility of its truth(-ness). We must keep in mind I am the worlds best poker player and in fact have over 100k games under my belt.

I'd like to suggest that Satoshi and Gavin, know that there can be no consensus, and that the proposal is exactly a test to prove it. The euro decision awaits ours, and so they will indefinitely stall until we come to this realization. No consensus can be made, and entropy suggest then that there will never be such a change.  Price then we should expect has started to fluctuate based on the stability of this realization.  After bitcoin's network grew to a certain size, and had a certain mixed distribution of followers, then theory can only be proven by the proposal of 20mb and the on goin realization that no consensus could be made.


I think we should discus the plausibility of this (possibly being a fact)...

Quote from: Ideal Money
For example there has been a quite dramatic improvement in the (internationally perceived apparent) quality of the money used in the countries of Italy and Greece simply because they have moved through the revol-utionary transition of renouncing the use of the lira or the drachma and have accepted the use of the newly established “euro” unit.

Nowadays we see some new areas of competition between different major currencies of the world since the euro has come into existence and the psychological climate in which the "central bankers" are operating is recently changed by the theme that is next described.

In the near future there may be a smaller number of major currencies used in the world and these may stand in competitive relations among themselves. There is now
the "euro" and the inflationary tradition of the Italian lira seems to be past history now. And there COULD be introduced, for example, a similar international currency for the Islamic world, or for South Asia, or for South America, or here or there.

   So we can imagine the evolutionary possibility of “asymptotically ideal money". Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic price index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based value comparisons. The currencies being compared, like now the euro, the dollar, the yen, the pound, the Swiss franc, the Swedish krona, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their users and by those who may have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of inflationary depreciation in value.

 Illustrating these optional choices that the public, the users of a money, may have, the people of Sweden recently had the opportunity of voting in a referendum on whether or not Sweden should join the euro money bloc and replace the krona by the euro and thus use the same currency as Finland. The people voted against that, for various reasons. But it cannot be irrelevant whether or not the future quality of a currency is really assured or whether instead that it depends on the shifting sands of political decisions or the possibly arbitrary actions of a bureaucracy of officials.

 The voters in the U.K. are expecting to have the opportunity to vote in a referendum relating to the adoption, for the U.K., of the euro (which is already adopted in Ireland). Here they have a dramatic conflict, since the pound was the original currency of "the gold standard", with its value pegged to gold in 1717 by Isaac Newton (who was then Master of the Mint).
    In recent years the pound has had a comparatively good rating with regard to inflation, inferior to the rating of the Swiss franc but superior to most currencies of the world. So the British have the alternatives of accepting adoption of the euro when first voting, or after a delay, or never.
    We can legitimately wonder how the speediness of its adoption or delays in its adoption might affect the poli-cies operating to control the actual exchange value of the euro. The constitutional structure of the authority behind the euro is of the "paper money" character in that nothing is really guaranteed as far as the value of the euro is concerned. But this is typical of all currencies used in the world nowadays.
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1044


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 07:43:44 PM
 #1407

I would support (and prefer) a limit that is set every two weeks (along with difficulty) to thrice the load experienced in the previous two weeks (so that the limit remains approximately thrice the actual usage).  That seems more responsive and more likely to survive relatively sudden and extreme changes in usage patterns if something unexpected happens over the course of a few weeks.  At the same time it doesn't permit horrible abuses by attackers unless they mine a significant fraction of all blocks for a long-ish period of time.

I might not be correct here, but its worth clarifying (by others).  I have read some papers thoroughly and some not so much (alas I cannot read everything). My understanding was that you cannot put a market mechanism in place here and especially not at this time (I have a thought about a future possibility that is not relevant at this time).
I agree with both Keynes and Smith, in thinking that it would be mad to seek to put into place a limit with significance as a market mechanism.  Creating a 'market' imposing a significant cost in fees on ordinary transactions is a poisonous side effect of having a limit at all, and one whose influence we seek to minimize.  The only reason limits are necessary is to prevent denial of service and outright theft of services.

The point of retaining a block size limit at all, in fact, was never driven by any supposed need for scarcity in a fees market; it was and is driven by the fear that the blockchain will be abused, either for an attack on bitcoin itself (ie, making it so onerous to download the chain that bitcoin is thinly supported by full nodes) or as a way of using the block chain to 'steal' huge and inefficiently utilized storage space to record data irrelevant to the purposes of those who would be paying for the storage.

Both of these remain concerns when raising the limit.  But the limit must be raised, because in general it would be actively bad to create a scarcity market in the ability to make transactions.  

If I understand this all correctly (and keeping in mind there is no bitcoin elite to confirm or deny), such a proposal would be EXACTLY like trying to square a circle (which requires geometry not necessarily of this universe). We can only guess, and put in some form of static (albeit variable) rate.  And then further more there must be a consensus.  This makes the problem very defined, and very simple, although psychologically difficult for each of us to accept.

Here is an interesting tidbit, although I know well that this is not exactly what you mean by squaring a circle.

But this is the equation of a circle:

x2 + y2 = 1

And here is the corresponding equation of the square which exactly circumscribes such a circle:

xinfinity + yinfinity = 1

They are more closely related than most people realize.  Similarly, sometimes a very closely related problem which has a simple solution can be found and, for some purposes that solution may serve.

At any rate for practical purposes the impossibility of calculating pi to the last digit isn't a significant limit as to what we can actually do.  Getting 'close enough' to squaring a circle gives results indistinguishable from perfect results.  We can these days square a circle bigger than this solar system with an error smaller than the width of a hydrogen atom.  Even though we will never be able to exactly square a circle, we have reached a point at which our inability to do so imposes no practical limit.

Buffer Overflow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015



View Profile
February 15, 2015, 07:50:32 PM
 #1408

We must keep in mind I am the worlds best poker player and in fact have over 100k games under my belt.
Watch out everyone, he could be bluffing, or maybe not.  Wink

traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 07:58:54 PM
 #1409


At any rate for practical purposes the impossibility of calculating pi to the last digit isn't a significant limit as to what we can actually do.  Getting 'close enough' to squaring a circle gives results indistinguishable from perfect results.  We can these days square a circle bigger than this solar system with an error smaller than the width of a hydrogen atom.  Even though we will never be able to exactly square a circle, we have reached a point at which our inability to do so imposes no practical limit.

Thank you for "playing along".  I have many relevant points but look forward to others responses rather than my long drawn out response.  I must relevate the fact that Mochizuki will have dramatically changed our understanding of this using inter universal geometry.

Quote from: Shinichi
Even under circumstances where one is only linked by a “narrow pipe” (i.e., such as an astronaut on a space vessel or miners work-ing in an underground mine), it is possible to reconstruct and grasp the situ-ation on the “other side” by making wise use of the limited information available.

That is to say,“inter-universal geometry” allows one to relate the “geometries” that occur in distinct universes.

Here, again we recall from the discussion of Remark 3.6.2, (i), (ii), that it is only by working with such correspondences that may be described by means of set-theoretic formulas that one may obtain descriptions that allow one to calculate the operations performed in one universe from the point of view of an alien universe

I must note that I also was in fact an underground miner which I left to play poker (I doubt we will believe this but its true) and so I must assert my relevance again. And I will also make a small point that Hayek says that Keynes, although a genius was not really an economist, and did not seem to understand international type commerce. And in that by agreeing with Keynes I think we start to disagree with Satoshi, Nash, Szabo, and Smith (and Hayek). (Hayek: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/what-is-ideal-money/)
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 07:59:38 PM
 #1410

We must keep in mind I am the worlds best poker player and in fact have over 100k games under my belt.
Watch out everyone, he could be bluffing, or maybe not.  Wink
Exactly, thank you.  I am also on 28 tables right now as I type. Now we are playing poker!
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296
Merit: 1533


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
February 15, 2015, 08:00:51 PM
 #1411

Forking on a whim, so some VCs who bought $1000 BTCs are that much closer to realizing their dream of everyone using BTC at Coke machines and Starbucks, harms the store-of-value function by diluting the previously more scare and extremely valuable commodity of blockchain real estate.

I feel this brings us to the crux of the matter.  Ultimately, the anti-fork argument boils down to "Bitcoin works for us, and does what we want it to, so we should burn the bridge behind us and protect our interests.  Let's stop here".  

The pro-fork argument says "actually, we're not done yet, let's get some more people (directly) involved with this and see what further innovations we can come up with.  We see a bright future ahead and it will be a change for the better".
You gavincoin people simply won't do the math.  There is no realistic point where a decent fraction of the worlds population can use native Bitcoin and have it remain supportable by anything but the most well situated mega-players.

You people remind me of someone who would put a gallon of gas into their tank and drive off into the desert toward a location 1000 miles away.  You just cannot get there.  You'll die.  'free markets' are not going to magically conjure up gas stations as needed for you.  Really, what passes for your thought processes here seem just that stupid, and then some. 

As usual, you've got it completely ass-backwards.  I'm the one who wants to make sure there's enough fuel to get where we're going.  You're the one who thinks they're going to get somewhere with an arbitrary limit on the resources.


And the best part is, you get to choose.  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the fork has enough momentum behind it to go ahead.  And when it does, you can stay behind on the old chain and stagnate in a niche with your precious limits, or you can stay with the clear majority and see where things go from here when enough people are on board to really challenge the widely accepted perceptions about how money should work.

If sidechains do eventually come to fruition then it's a win-win either way, but until then, the rest of us don't want to risk the network grinding to a halt because too many people wanted to try out Bitcoin and we hit a wall on some inane limit.  The future potential for sidechains is not a substantial reason to delay this necessary update.  The simple fact is, you can't promise sidechains will be ready in time before we start piling up unconfirmed transactions.

As for the unconfirmed transactions, they'll time out.  If it stresses some nodes, good for the owners to know it now.   It would be the kind of shock which is good for Bitcoin to have now and then.  If Bitcoin only functions based on it's ability to stay ahead of the demand, that's pretty week and lame.

You honestly think the network failing to confirm transactions is good for the future of Bitcoin?  If several blocks in a row end up full and people are left waiting for their transactions to go through, you think that's going to help improve things?  I don't care how much you think you've done the math to support your side of the debate, you haven't considered the consequences and repercussions of placing artificial limits on a system that will work just fine without them.  You've considered about the consequences of removing them, stating it might one day in the distant future lead to centralisation.  But even if that happens, it's far more likely that full blocks will happen first.  Can we please deal with the hurdles in the order that they appear?

traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 08:06:20 PM
 #1412

 Can we please deal with the hurdles in the order that they appear?
The suggestion has been made that we deal with things from the perspective of an implicate order. http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf

How would you feel upon realizing there can be no change, because there is no consensus for it, and entropy suggests this is final (apologies if i used that word wrong!)
danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
February 15, 2015, 08:12:24 PM
 #1413

If satoshi came online and said

"Lets fork."

Everyone would agree.

I wouldn't. Satoshi did his thing, and I'm glad he's gone now. His code sucked, and there is nothing more he could do for bitcoin except continue to hold his million coins. Now bitcoin is in the hands of #bitcoin-assets, regardless of how you'd all like to pretend they don't exist. When you're done throwing your little tantrums, you can begin the process of becoming a real person.

Quote from: Pete Dushenski
You spent more time learning to walk, more time learning to colour in the lines, and more time undoing the brain damage wrought by grade skool. Contrary to popular belief, what you need to spend the next 6-12 months doing isn’t tweeting, facebooking, instagramming, meet-uping or conference attending. If you want to be a part of Bitcoin, spending 6-12 months at Mircea Popescu‘s IRC Yeshiva really isn’t too much to ask. If you want to make an impact that will be felt by future generations, there “seems” to be no. other. way.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1079


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 08:34:05 PM
 #1414


You gavincoin people simply won't do the math.  There is no realistic point where a decent fraction of the worlds population can use native Bitcoin and have it remain supportable by anything but the most well situated mega-players.

You people remind me of someone who would put a gallon of gas into their tank and drive off into the desert toward a location 1000 miles away.  You just cannot get there.  You'll die.  'free markets' are not going to magically conjure up gas stations as needed for you.  Really, what passes for your thought processes here seem just that stupid, and then some. 

As usual, you've got it completely ass-backwards.  I'm the one who wants to make sure there's enough fuel to get where we're going.  You're the one who thinks they're going to get somewhere with an arbitrary limit on the resources.

Well for the love of Christ, what fraction of earth's population doing how many transactions per day?  What is so hard about that question?


As for the unconfirmed transactions, they'll time out.  If it stresses some nodes, good for the owners to know it now.   It would be the kind of shock which is good for Bitcoin to have now and then.  If Bitcoin only functions based on it's ability to stay ahead of the demand, that's pretty week and lame.

You honestly think the network failing to confirm transactions is good for the future of Bitcoin?  If several blocks in a row end up full and people are left waiting for their transactions to go through, you think that's going to help improve things?  I don't care how much you think you've done the math to support your side of the debate, you haven't considered the consequences and repercussions of placing artificial limits on a system that will work just fine without them.  You've considered about the consequences of removing them, stating it might one day in the distant future lead to centralisation.  But even if that happens, it's far more likely that full blocks will happen first.  Can we please deal with the hurdles in the order that they appear?

You are really going to tell me that Bitcoin fails the moment some guy's transaction times out?

Time-outs are a good thing for a few reasons.  One is you can finally try again.  Two is because it educates ignorant people that Bitcoin is a batch system.  Like it or not, that is what it is.  Sorry if it either confuses you to tears or shatter's your myth that it's a good exchange solution for trinkets.

People receiving such an education from time to time isn't just a good thing, it's a great thing!  All of the 'mutability' problems were simply due to ignorant people trying to take short-cuts around the system as it was designed.  Wait for confirmations.  It's a perfectly usable and vastly more robust solution if people do this one little thing.  Again, if it cuts out the trinket-buyers, goodbye and good riddance.  They are nothing but a giant hassle and most irritating to boot.

I don't get pissed very easily, but it really rubs me the wrong way that someone demands their piss-ant $2.00 transaction gets to live on forever on everyone's system who wants to support the solution in a meaningful way.  The main reason is that I would't dream to make such a nonsense request.  From day one I deliberately used off-chain solutions as much as I could for trivial things.  I've spent to many years dealing with the electronic messes left by thoughtless people I suppose.


bambou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 08:38:57 PM
 #1415

If satoshi came online and said

"Lets fork."

Everyone would agree.

I wouldn't. Satoshi did his thing, and I'm glad he's gone now. His code sucked, and there is nothing more he could do for bitcoin except continue to hold his million coins. Now bitcoin is in the hands of #bitcoin-assets, regardless of how you'd all like to pretend they don't exist. When you're done throwing your little tantrums, you can begin the process of becoming a real person.

Quote from: Pete Dushenski
You spent more time learning to walk, more time learning to colour in the lines, and more time undoing the brain damage wrought by grade skool. Contrary to popular belief, what you need to spend the next 6-12 months doing isn’t tweeting, facebooking, instagramming, meet-uping or conference attending. If you want to be a part of Bitcoin, spending 6-12 months at Mircea Popescu‘s IRC Yeshiva really isn’t too much to ask. If you want to make an impact that will be felt by future generations, there “seems” to be no. other. way.

lol wut? like if MP's coding was worth anything for a start.

no but seriously, i esteem MP somehow but having frustrated teenagers bragging and insulting over the interwebz is not very constructive.

seriously this is the lowest attempt at 'recruiting' people to join the #BA i've witness so far.
so cultish, at least Bibi Netanyahoo offered 120 000$ for the jooz to make their aliya.. Grin

Non inultus premor
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1079


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 08:41:42 PM
 #1416


You honestly think the network failing to confirm transactions is good for the future of Bitcoin?  If several blocks in a row end up full and people are left waiting for their transactions to go through, you think that's going to help improve things?  I don't care how much you think you've done the math to support your side of the debate, you haven't considered the consequences and repercussions of placing artificial limits on a system that will work just fine without them.  You've considered about the consequences of removing them, stating it might one day in the distant future lead to centralisation.  But even if that happens, it's far more likely that full blocks will happen first.  Can we please deal with the hurdles in the order that they appear?



Not easily as long as I'm a hodler.


traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 08:46:10 PM
 #1417

Well for the love of Christ,
Firstly Krishna was blue and so I think probably we can call him "blue-Nash".

Lastly:
Quote from: Bohm
The object of a dialogue is not to analyse things, or to win an argument, of to exchange opinions. Rather, it is to suspend your opinions and to look at the opinions-to listen to everybody’s opinions, to suspend them, and to see what all that means.
And so I think these notes will be useful to establish "dialogue" https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/notes-on-on-dialogue-and-in-relation-to-the-block-size-discussion-dialoue/
danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
February 15, 2015, 08:51:08 PM
 #1418

Now bitcoin is in the hands of #bitcoin-assets, regardless of how you'd all like to pretend they don't exist. When you're done throwing your little tantrums, you can begin the process of becoming a real person.

Quote from: Pete Dushenski
You spent more time learning to walk, more time learning to colour in the lines, and more time undoing the brain damage wrought by grade skool. Contrary to popular belief, what you need to spend the next 6-12 months doing isn’t tweeting, facebooking, instagramming, meet-uping or conference attending. If you want to be a part of Bitcoin, spending 6-12 months at Mircea Popescu‘s IRC Yeshiva really isn’t too much to ask. If you want to make an impact that will be felt by future generations, there “seems” to be no. other. way.

lol wut? like if MP's coding was worth anything for a start.

no but seriously, i esteem MP somehow but having frustrated teenagers bragging and insulting over the interwebz is not very constructive

Well, MP isn't the one doing the coding.

And as to your "teenagers bragging" line -- I agree. So why don't you kids stop wasting your time on this derpy forum, and join the adults.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 15, 2015, 08:56:14 PM
 #1419

I suspect it would be helpful to not start our posts out by laughing at and mocking others posts (what is helpful can be seen to benefit us all!)

I also notice we have so far avoided the question about the possibility that no consensus can be made and therefore such change is impossible.  We should discuss/figure out our strategies in such a case (and therefore the ramifications).

provenceday
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 15, 2015, 08:59:57 PM
 #1420

Will support that Bitcoin 20MB Fork.
do not be too conservative.

let's see what will happen. Wink
Pages: « 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 ... 131 »
  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!