Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[amincd]

...

I see the need for merge-mining on a sidechain as only necessary to interact with and support it's backing store (Bitcoin.)  That is, what I would call their 'backing store layer'.

The interaction relies on PoW, and therefore the PoW controls the BTC suspended in the Bitcoin blockchain for the Sidechain. This means a >50% attack can steal all of the BTC that backs a two-way convertible sidechain.

Again, I recommend you read the whitepaper published by Blockstream on sidechains. There are several security vulnerabilities that pegged sidechains with two-way convertibility will have.

You also clearly didn't read my statement on where I do and do not need 'military grade' security.  I keep some excess fiat in PayPal, but not my lifes' savings.  If they fold and/or steal my money I'll be pissed and I'll try to get it back, but it won't hurt me much because I balance my risk.  Indeed, I do the same for fiat in banks.  That will be very much the case for sidechains.  I'll mainly choose to use sidechains based on my desire to support a particular effort which sponsors them.  I'll not put much money into any particular sidechain for some time, if ever, so I simply don't need high level security.  I'll use native Bitcoin for my deep storage of real value...unless the bloatchain guys win the war that is.

Even if most transactions occur on lower security sidechains, people will need the Bitcoin main chain to store and access their savings. Now unless you want 1 billion people to only access the main chain once per decade, the 1 MB block size limit needs to be lifted.

Right now it is WAY too early to be trying to force transactions off the main chain. Right now is early adoption phase, meaning Bitcoin needs to grow rapidly and gain users, not look to conduct experiments on block scarcity and off-chain solutions. 1 MB is way too low a figure to set the limit on how much the main chain will scale.

Is it worth self-exile from TOR and other low-bandwith networks just so Bitcoin can attempt to track every coffee bean/bus ticket and be a single point of failure for all transactions great and small?

Two points:

1. Bitcoin needs much larger blocks to simply act as a bank-wire replacement. Forget buying coffees. Please read DeathandTaxes' analysis:
   
Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ...

Can we stop talking about a cup of coffee please?
You may have heard someone say something like "Every $5 starbucks coffee doesn't need to be on the blockchain so there is no need to raise the limit".   The implied message is that while the cost of the limit is that trivial purchases will be knocked off chain you will still have direct access to the blockchain for everything else, but the 1MB restriction puts such a chokehold on transaction capacity that even larger more meaningful transactions will eventually be knocked off as well.

2. I would rather full nodes not be able to use TOR, than end users have to use large financial intermediaries to access the Bitcoin blockchain more often than once a decade. Please read DeathAndTaxes' analysis linked above.

[tvbcof]

...

I see the need for merge-mining on a sidechain as only necessary to interact with and support it's backing store (Bitcoin.)  That is, what I would call their 'backing store layer'.

The interaction relies on PoW, and therefore the PoW controls the BTC suspended in the Bitcoin blockchain for the Sidechain. This means a >50% attack can steal all of the BTC that backs a two-way convertible sidechain.

Again, I recommend you read the whitepaper published by Blockstream on sidechains. There are several security vulnerabilities that pegged sidechains with two-way convertibility will have.

Initially, at least, I'll only use a sidechain which can recognize an attack and freeze peg operations until the attacker gets tired of wasting his effort and goes away.  If it even takes that to protect the sub-system.  In the mean time I'll expect many designs to be able to operate just fine but just cannot inflate or deflate while an attack is underway.

In my conception of the world one of the marvelous things about sidechains is that they are much more free to adapt to various kinds of threats (and service more types of needs.)  Indeed, that is one of the ways that sidechains support Bitcoin...by creating an endless whack-a-mole for entities trying to attack crypto-currencies more generally.  The only totally critical thing is that native Bitcoin itself remains solid and well defended.

You also clearly didn't read my statement on where I do and do not need 'military grade' security.  I keep some excess fiat in PayPal, but not my lifes' savings.  If they fold and/or steal my money I'll be pissed and I'll try to get it back, but it won't hurt me much because I balance my risk.  Indeed, I do the same for fiat in banks.  That will be very much the case for sidechains.  I'll mainly choose to use sidechains based on my desire to support a particular effort which sponsors them.  I'll not put much money into any particular sidechain for some time, if ever, so I simply don't need high level security.  I'll use native Bitcoin for my deep storage of real value...unless the bloatchain guys win the war that is.

Even if most transactions occur on lower security sidechains, people will need the Bitcoin main chain to store and access their savings. Now unless you want 1 billion people to only access the main chain once per decade, the 1 MB block size limit needs to be lifted.

Right now it is WAY too early to be trying to force transactions off the main chain. Right now is early adoption phase, meaning Bitcoin needs to grow rapidly and gain users, not look to conduct experiments on block scarcity. 1 MB is way too low a figure to set the limit on how much the main chain will scale.

As I've said before, I'm open to a conversation about blocksize as long as there is a well defined problem and proposed solution regarding scaling.  I've made no bones about the fact that I myself have serious concerns about 4-7 tps even when most native Bitcoin transactions are sidechains balancings and user 'safe deposit box' style transactions if/when crypto-currencies are more than a tiny tiny part of the world's financial activity.

None of you pro-fork people have given anything to hint at where you want to stop with your simplistic 'increase block size to scale' scheme, or where you want to draw the line with exclusions.  All I hear is 'faith based' assertions that market forces will make everything work out.  Start talking numbers and we'll start analyzing.  In the mean time, we have one chance to stay within the constraints of what is achievable behind TOR and realistically likewise hardening methods.  I'm not interested in throwing it away... especially when there is no need and a very promising solution is around the corner.

[amincd]

Initially, at least, I'll only use a sidechain which can recognize an attack and freeze peg operations until the attacker gets tired of wasting his effort and goes away.  If it even takes that to protect the sub-system.

That's not how sidechains work. If you want two-way convertibility, without using trusted third parties, the only thing that controls where the suspended BTC backing the sidechain go is proof of work, so a successful >50% attack can steal all the BTC backing the sidechain.

As I've said before, I'm open to a conversation about blocksize as long as there is a well defined problem and proposed solution regarding scaling.  I've made no bones about the fact that I myself have serious concerns about 4-7 tps even when most native Bitcoin transactions are sidechains balancings and user 'safe deposit box' style transactions if/when crypto-currencies are more than a tiny tiny part of the world's financial activity.

None of you pro-fork people have given anything to hint at where you want to stop with your simplistic 'increase block size to scale' scheme, or where you want to draw the line with exclusions.  All I hear is 'faith based' assertions that market forces will make everything work out.  Start talking numbers and we'll start analyzing.  In the mean time, we have one chance to stay within the constraints of what is achievable behind TOR and realistically likewise hardening methods.  I'm not interested in throwing it away... especially when there is no need and a very promising solution is around the corner.

The only point I'm adamant about is that the 1 MB block size limit absolutely needs to be raised, because otherwise Bitcoin's chances of mass adoption are severely curtailed. You'll notice a lot of the people pushing for a permanent 1 MB restriction are supporters of one or more altcoins, and it is altcoins that I believe stand to benefit most from the Bitcoin community failing to do the right thing and raise the current limit.

I am also open to different proposals on exactly what to replace the current 1 MB restriction with, in order to make the right trade off between distribution of full nodes, and transaction throughput.

As for which particular proposal is best, I wrote this on Reddit a while ago, and for brevity, I'll reproduce it here:

I would go with Gavin's 16.8 MB, and doubling every two years after that (40% per year), up to a maximum of 16 GB 20 years from now. If it was entirely up to me, I'd probably raise it to the same 16.8 MB, and then grow it up by a smaller percentage every year (e.g. 25%). However, I haven't studied bandwidth growth rates closely enough to know for certain what the right rate of increase is.

Whatever it is, I'm not overly concerned with a 'too-high' block size limit, as there are multiple mechanisms in place already that prevent blocks from getting too large, other than a hard limit at the protocol level. Thus far in Bitcoin's history we've seen that blocks don't get as big as the hard limit permits: the limit has been 1 MB for five years, and blocks are still only 0.5 MB. And if the hard limit turns out to be high, AND the other mechanisms fail to impose reasonable limits on the block size, a soft limit can be imposed by miners, that would be enforced as if it were a hard limit. So whether the hard limit grows by 25% or 40% every year, is not a big deal IMO.

[RoadStress]

Does anyone know how much space in a block will the 2-way peg need?

[benjamindees]

I just see no 'sweet spot' where some realistic threshold of 'Joe Sixpack' users can use Bitcoin for every day stuff and yet the system remains small enough to be sufficiently decentralized and defensible from subversion.  There is always going to be some point where there is exclusion.

Even back when I first started using the system I was so aware of the cost of doing transactions which remain forever the responsibility of infrastructure operators (including myself) to maintain that I moderated my usage out of consideration.  I find it highly irritating that people demand this level of security for day-to-day purchases.  Similarly, the argument that everyone somehow 'deserves' this level of security is absurd to me.  I don't request nor desire Bitcoin level security for any but the most critical transactions that I do.

So, the question becomes, if you only have access to the main chain once every six months, are you willing to trust all other coins to a sidechain?

[R2D221]

Does anyone know how much space in a block will the 2-way peg need?

Exactly. This is an important question. We talk about how we don't want to use much space, but how much space is needed for the sidechains?

[iCEBREAKER]

Is it worth self-exile from TOR and other low-bandwith networks just so Bitcoin can attempt to track every coffee bean/bus ticket and be a single point of failure for all transactions great and small?

Two points:

1. Bitcoin needs much larger blocks to simply act as a bank-wire replacement. Forget buying coffees. Please read DeathandTaxes' analysis:
   
Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ...

Can we stop talking about a cup of coffee please?
You may have heard someone say something like "Every $5 starbucks coffee doesn't need to be on the blockchain so there is no need to raise the limit".   The implied message is that while the cost of the limit is that trivial purchases will be knocked off chain you will still have direct access to the blockchain for everything else, but the 1MB restriction puts such a chokehold on transaction capacity that even larger more meaningful transactions will eventually be knocked off as well.

2. I would rather full nodes not be able to use TOR, than end users have to use large financial intermediaries to access the Bitcoin blockchain more often than once a decade. Please read DeathAndTaxes' analysis linked above.

I've already read D&T's analysis.

I don't propose Bitcoin replace Starbucks cards, much less bank-wires.

I support the paradigm of Bitcoin as a new kind of 'super-gold' that creates its own category on the spectrum, supplanting all previous forms of money:

coins<bills<plastic<check<ACH<wire<gold<<Bitcoin

I also share the ideal of end users minimizing or excluding trust via their own full nodes direct access to a blockchain.

Those nodes and their blockchains do not have to be Bitcoin's.  That is the mistake the hubris-filled Maximalist camp makes.

There are at least three other blockchains available which are well suited to handle the small (Cryptonite), medium (Litecoin), and private (Monero) transactions.

If Bitcoin insists on being all things to all people everywhere and forever (excluding TOR and other low-bandwidth connections), it will dramatically fork into a payment system (20MBcoin) and store of value (1MBcoin).

[amincd]

I don't propose Bitcoin replace Starbucks cards, much less bank-wires.

I support the paradigm of Bitcoin as a new kind of 'super-gold' that creates its own category on the spectrum, supplanting all previous forms of money:

That might not work out as you imagine. I would wager a lot of money that it would fail miserably, and if Bitcoin was stuck at 1 MB of transaction data, an altcoin blockchain will simply replace Bitcoin as the market leader as users opt for it rather than paying higher fees.

I also don't want a Bitcoin blockchain that is a "super gold" transfer system, that only large financial institutions can afford to directly access. I want Bitcoin to be what the Bitcoin white paper promised:

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Abstract. 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.

An ultra expensive "super gold" transfer system that only large financial institutions can afford to directly access on behalf of their end users is exactly the opposite of a peer-to-peer electronic cash.

There are at least three other blockchains available which are well suited to handle the small (Cryptonite), medium (Litecoin), and private (Monero) transactions.

I don't want to give altcoins space to take market share from Bitcoin. You do.

[cbeast]

Initially, at least, I'll only use a sidechain which can recognize an attack and freeze peg operations until the attacker gets tired of wasting his effort and goes away.  If it even takes that to protect the sub-system.  In the mean time I'll expect many designs to be able to operate just fine but just cannot inflate or deflate while an attack is underway.

In my conception of the world one of the marvelous things about sidechains is that they are much more free to adapt to various kinds of threats (and service more types of needs.)  Indeed, that is one of the ways that sidechains support Bitcoin...by creating an endless whack-a-mole for entities trying to attack crypto-currencies more generally.   only totally critical thing is that native Bitcoin itself remains solid and well defended.

You sure are putting a lot of faith in side chains.

The only totally critical thing is that native Bitcoin itself remains solid and well defended.

Greed is the only thing needed for that. Engineers will sort out the details.

As I've said before, I'm open to a conversation about blocksize as long as there is a well defined problem and proposed solution regarding scaling.

How magnanimous of you to allow others to define the problem and solution for you to criticize. Where's your well defined problem and solution?

I've made no bones about the fact that I myself have serious concerns about 4-7 tps even when most native Bitcoin transactions are sidechains balancings and user 'safe deposit box' style transactions if/when crypto-currencies are more than a tiny tiny part of the world's financial activity.

You have an interesting prediction on the future of transactions. In fact, the goal is for Bitcoin proper to scale as needed for the types of payments it best serves. It will be much higher than 4-7 tps. Bitcoin only needs to serve where cash would best serve because Bitcoin is cash.

None of you pro-fork people have given anything to hint at where you want to stop with your simplistic 'increase block size to scale' scheme, or where you want to draw the line with exclusions.  

That's like asking scientists when they will be done discovering stuff.

All I hear is 'faith based' assertions that market forces will make everything work out.  Start talking numbers and we'll start analyzing.

You contradict yourself. Market forces use numbers by definition. Besides, you are the one with faith based in side chains that will make everything work out.

In the mean time, we have one chance to stay within the constraints of what is achievable behind TOR and realistically likewise hardening methods.  I'm not interested in throwing it away... especially when there is no need and a very promising solution is around the corner.

TOR has nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol. TOR was compromised recently. If it was used, it would be in very limited fashion.

[iCEBREAKER]

I don't propose Bitcoin replace Starbucks cards, much less bank-wires.

I support the paradigm of Bitcoin as a new kind of 'super-gold' that creates its own category on the spectrum, supplanting all previous forms of money:

That might not work out as you imagine. I would wager a lot of money that it would fail miserably, and if Bitcoin was stuck at 1 MB of transaction data, an altcoin blockchain will simply replace Bitcoin as the market leader as users opt for it rather than paying higher fees.

I also don't want a Bitcoin blockchain that is a "super gold" transfer system, that only large financial institutions can afford to directly access.

Not 'an altcoin blockchain' but rather plural 'blockchains.'

I want the distribution of wealth in crypto to look like the pie chart of mining pool hashrates.

Bitcoin should be the largest, followed by many smaller ones, not a top-heavy 85%.

The Maximalists should stop thinking like a Bill Gates wanna-be monopolist, abandon their Tower of Bitcoin, and embrace Nash Equilibrium.  Because this:

https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/securing-decentralization-through-nash-equilibria/

If 1MB starts creating problems, let the market and ecosystem deal with them for a while and see what they come up with.

Then, armed with empirical data, we can decide with higher consensus whether to change it, and by how much.

[amincd]

I want the distribution of wealth in crypto to look like the pie chart of mining pool hashrates.

That would require Bitcoin losing significant market share to altcoins. I don't want that to happen. Most Bitcoin users don't want that to happen. You're an advocate of altcoins, so your interests diverge from that the majority of the members of this community. I suspect that is why you are advocating against a hard fork and for a permanent 1 MB restriction that would hamper Bitcoin's adoption.

[amincd]

It's not yours, you dont need to give anything, megalomaniac nuts. All fear and greed while the world's honeymoon with Bitcoin is ending, not smart to alienate the entire world right now.

It's not fear or greed. I don't believe cryptocurrency can attain mass adoption fragmented across an increasing number of blockchains with independent currency supplies. Cryptocurrency needs digital scarcity to succeed, and fragmentation and degradation of the network effect of the market leader is harmful for that, given blockchains are open source and easily duplicable. The best chance that cryptocurrency has is if Bitcoin attains mass adoption as the dominant cryptocurrency. It is currently totally dominant, and poised to do that. All that's standing in the way is the 1 MB block size limit, which the altcoin pumpers see as an opportunity to give their coins a means of taking market share from Bitcoin, and hence the personal attacks you see here.

[CoinCidental]

I don't want to give altcoins space to take market share from Bitcoin. You do.

It's not yours, you dont need to give anything, megalomaniac nuts. All fear and greed while the world's honeymoon with Bitcoin is ending, not smart to alienate the entire world right now.

how do you figure its ending when only 10-20% of people in WESTERN countries even know what a bitcoin is ?

probably the % of people in the world have ever owned or  used a bitcoin is a tiny fraction of 0.01%

i know i didnt have my first email address  until about 10 years after email was invented and even then i wasnt quite sure about it or how useful it would become

bitcoin timeframe will be similar i guess ,all i know is ,the people who have coins now ARE the early adopters ,those coins will be worth a mint in a decade or probably sooner

and no ,we dont need more shitcoins ,i realise there are around 600-700 coins in the wild now but that will just divide and destroy crypto ,put all the resources into BTC and it will flourish

joe soap doesnt want to come to a bitcoin forum that doesnt even have a single btc thread on the front page and just full of worthless shitcoin pump and dump and convert to btc ASAP before anyone whos what happened ............

[Pecunia non olet]

I want the distribution of wealth in crypto to look like the pie chart of mining pool hashrates.

That would require Bitcoin losing significant market share to altcoins. I don't want that to happen. Most Bitcoin users don't want that to happen. You're an advocate of altcoins, so your interests diverge from that the majority of the members of this community. I suspect that is why you are advocating against a hard fork and for a permanent 1 MB restriction that would hamper Bitcoin's adoption.

you fail to realize: this hardfork, secret island meetings, gavins behaviour, the low priority consensus actually seems to have, the inaccessibility that Gavincoin will have, the behaviour of the pro-forkers aswell as many, many other things is exactly what drives people out of bitcoin and into altcoins.
(not that i would think it's a bad thing, i think it's healthy)


Alts gaining marketshare is healthy for all of the ecosystem, it improves decentralisation and developement.

Bitcoin bagholders who fear this are people who miss out on the opportunity to invest in altchains and make profits there.  

Panta rhei
You can't fight change, you can't surpress evolution. Embrace it and you won't suffer.

[amincd]

That's all garbage.

"Secret meetings" = people having a private meeting about Bitcoin.

"Inaccessiblity" = people not having to use a large financial institution to interact the blockchain, and not have to pay $40 to directly access the blockchain, as the 1 MB block size advocates suggest we should look forward to.

The fact that altcoin pumpers like kazuki49 are showing up to personally attack/slander hard fork advocates should tell you which decision is good for Bitcoin, and which one is designed to sabotage Bitcoin adoption.

Bitcoin bagholders who fear this are people who miss out on the opportunity to invest in altchains and make profits there.  

Sigh, another altcoin pumper..

[iCEBREAKER]

I want the distribution of wealth in crypto to look like the pie chart of mining pool hashrates.

That would require Bitcoin losing significant market share to altcoins. I don't want that to happen. Most Bitcoin users don't want that to happen. You're an advocate of altcoins, so your interests diverge from the majority of the members of this community. I suspect that is why you are advocating for against a hard fork and for a permanent 1 MB restriction that would hamper Bitcoin's adoption.

I am an advocate of crypto in general, including Bitcoin and altcoins.

The overall market for crypto currencies should grow so fast that Bitcoin's relative position among the sector is moot, except to you Maximalist partisan religious types.


I've never called for a "permanent" 1MB restriction.  Try reading what I actually wrote.

At this point, I am not willing to trade existing TOR and other low-bandwidth users for theoretical potential growth in adoption.

We need better data on exactly how the 1MB cap hampers adoption before we rush to fix the hitherto unknown problems it may cause.

What is your problem with Nash Equilibrium?  Don't you like decentralization and its feature of quickly identifying and nullifying bad actors?

Or did you just not bother to read the link?

Here it is again:  https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/securing-decentralization-through-nash-equilibria/

Do you think it would be healthy for one mining pool to have 85% of the hashpower?

No?  Then why do you want one blockchain to hog all the niches in the cypto ecosystem and economy?  Isn't it enough that Bitcoin will be the backbone?

[CoinCidental]

I want the distribution of wealth in crypto to look like the pie chart of mining pool hashrates.

That would require Bitcoin losing significant market share to altcoins. I don't want that to happen. Most Bitcoin users don't want that to happen. You're an advocate of altcoins, so your interests diverge from that the majority of the members of this community. I suspect that is why you are advocating against a hard fork and for a permanent 1 MB restriction that would hamper Bitcoin's adoption.

you fail to realize: this hardfork, secret island meetings, gavins behaviour, the low priority consensus actually seems to have, the inaccessibility that Gavincoin will have, the behaviour of the pro-forkers aswell as many, many other things is exactly what drives people out of bitcoin and into altcoins.
(not that i would think it's a bad thing, i think it's healthy)


Alts gaining marketshare is healthy for all of the ecosystem, it improves decentralisation and developement.

Bitcoin bagholders who fear this are people who miss out on the opportunity to invest in altchains and make profits there. 

its not about missing opportunitys to invest in shitcoins
more like a total dislike of them

its more like ALT coin bag holders trying to pimp their own coin because btc is closer to mainstream
than any ALT coin will ever be and alts are dying off every day and nobody even pays attention to it while btc gains more and more milllions in investments

[amincd]

I want the distribution of wealth in crypto to look like the pie chart of mining pool hashrates.

That would require Bitcoin losing significant market share to altcoins. I don't want that to happen. Most Bitcoin users don't want that to happen. You're an advocate of altcoins, so your interests diverge from that the majority of the members of this community. I suspect that is why you are advocating against a hard fork and for a permanent 1 MB restriction that would hamper Bitcoin's adoption.

you fail to realize: this hardfork, secret island meetings, gavins behaviour, the low priority consensus actually seems to have, the inaccessibility that Gavincoin will have, the behaviour of the pro-forkers aswell as many, many other things is exactly what drives people out of bitcoin and into altcoins.
(not that i would think it's a bad thing, i think it's healthy)


Alts gaining marketshare is healthy for all of the ecosystem, it improves decentralisation and developement.

Bitcoin bagholders who fear this are people who miss out on the opportunity to invest in altchains and make profits there.  

its not about missing opportunitys to invest in shitcoins
more like a total dislike of them

its more like ALT coin bag holders trying to pimp their own coin because btc is closer to mainstream
than any ALT coin will ever be and alts are dying off every day and nobody even pays attention to it while btc gains more and more milllions in investments

Exactly. We have XMR advocate kazuki49 harshly insulting Bitcoiners who say they want Bitcoin to maintain its market dominance against altcoins.

We have iCEBREAKER saying a permanent 1 MB restriction is okay because altcoins can just take market share from Bitcoin when the Bitcoin blockchain fills up to the limit.

We have 'Pecunia non olet' saying the hard fork would be bad, and then telling Bitcoiners they should be investing in altcoins.

That they have to come into the Bitcointalk forum to try to discourage the community from making the right decision, to give their altcoins a chance, shows how low they're sinking.

[numismatist]

I am an advocate of crypto in general, including Bitcoin and altcoins.

The overall market for crypto currencies should grow so fast that Bitcoin's relative position among the sector is moot, except to you Maximalist partisan religious types.

I've never called for a "permanent" 1MB restriction.  Try reading what I actually wrote.

Except that I didn't even tried (thread to long, didn't read) the necessary changes should never be abandoned early on because of some religious believes, like beein "haram" or "not something according to the pure writings".

We cannot have that! Bitcoin IS an oldtimer and needs a lift, or will get in danger of perishing and we know that affects every other coin, since "the concept of crypto" will look like a fail due to these artificial, unpractical limitations.

Speaking of Oldtimers, Alain Delon's Ferrari out of Roger Baillon's collection got sold. Guess the trade value 

[amincd]

It seems like there a very high proportion of those against this sensible protocol adjustment are advocates of altcoins. You go as far as calling people "crazy" and "megalomaniacs" for wanting Bitcoin to remain dominant in the market. In Bitcointalk..

Icebreaker wants a permanent 1 MB block size limit and for Bitcoin to lose 60% of its market share to altcoins.

The best course of action for Bitcoin (not altcoins), is for this artificial 1 MB restriction to be lifted, as Satoshi intended, and the current lead developer, Gavin Andresen, intends.

I've given numerous reasons why larger blocks are necessary for Bitcoin's success, as have others. You're more interested in your personal attacks to deflect the issue, because you're not here to honestly debate the issue. You're here to advocate for your altcoin.