Bitcoin Forum
April 25, 2019, 12:48:18 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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 ... 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 153665 times)
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 04, 2015, 05:43:00 PM
 #481

false analogy:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy

just to draw an analogy doesn't make your analogy an argument. I can compare bitcoin to the weather too and draw all kinds of conclusions.

Good night.

Finally you make some sense.

Good bye, for the third time.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
1556196498
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1556196498

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1556196498
Reply with quote  #2

1556196498
Report to moderator
1556196498
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1556196498

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1556196498
Reply with quote  #2

1556196498
Report to moderator
1556196498
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1556196498

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1556196498
Reply with quote  #2

1556196498
Report to moderator
100% New Software
PC, Mac, Android, & HTML5 Clients
Krill Rakeback
Low Rake
Bitcoin Poker 3.0
Bad Beat Jackpot
SwC Poker Relaunch
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1556196498
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1556196498

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1556196498
Reply with quote  #2

1556196498
Report to moderator
Eamorr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 04, 2015, 05:48:07 PM
 #482

false analogy:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy

just to draw an analogy doesn't make your analogy an argument. I can compare bitcoin to the weather too and draw all kinds of conclusions.

Good night.

Finally you make some sense.

Good bye, for the third time.

I think you should fork off outta here too.
LeMiner
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 139
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 04, 2015, 06:06:32 PM
 #483


EDIT: 4000 tps and even 45000 tps theoretically but considering how many we have in the fiat world now despite all its inefficiencies we could easily be looking at 4 billion tps at some stage.

Obviously the technique can be improved a LOT before we would be hitting limits anywhere even remotely near that. And computers that far in the future will also be a lot more powerful.

★  utrum  ★  Your Crypto Playbook  ★  Got an opinion? Get paid for it!  ★
●  ●  WHITE PAPER   |  EXCHANGES   |   ANN THREAD  ●  ●
TWITTER   ▬  FACEBOOK   ▬  LINKEDIN   ▬  GITHUB   ▬  YOUTUBE
bambou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 04, 2015, 06:17:36 PM
 #484


EDIT: 4000 tps and even 45000 tps theoretically but considering how many we have in the fiat world now despite all its inefficiencies we could easily be looking at 4 billion tps at some stage.

Obviously the technique can be improved a LOT before we would be hitting limits anywhere even remotely near that. And computers that far in the future will also be a lot more powerful.

Bitcoin will fail because involved people are lost in the future, instead of focusing on the present.

edit: Quod Erat Demonstrandum > http://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/2uovrl/me_28_f_with_my_husband_31_m_5_years_will_not/

Quote
"I used to consider him a smart guy and I never, ever thought he would succomb to basically being brainwashed by a bunch of clueless idiots on the internet who seem to know absolutely nothing about finance or the real world."

Non inultus premor
bambou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 04, 2015, 06:32:51 PM
Last edit: February 04, 2015, 06:49:19 PM by bambou
 #485

Quite spot on for the rest mate,


...

Quote from: stan.distortion
miners rewards

Miners need either;

lots of transactions all paying a little fee
very little amount of transactions paying a large fee

Bitcoin needs prefers to be viable for as many people as possible, so a very little fee per transaction over a large amount of transactions has the preference.

This is what the "people will use bitcoin without knowing it" stands for.


Non inultus premor
LeMiner
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 139
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 04, 2015, 06:48:00 PM
 #486


EDIT: 4000 tps and even 45000 tps theoretically but considering how many we have in the fiat world now despite all its inefficiencies we could easily be looking at 4 billion tps at some stage.

Obviously the technique can be improved a LOT before we would be hitting limits anywhere even remotely near that. And computers that far in the future will also be a lot more powerful.

Bitcoin will fail because involved people are lost in the future, instead of focusing on the present.

edit: Quod Erat Demonstrandum > http://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/2uovrl/me_28_f_with_my_husband_31_m_5_years_will_not/

Quote
"I used to consider him a smart guy and I never, ever thought he would succomb to basically being brainwashed by a bunch of clueless idiots on the internet who seem to know absolutely nothing about finance or the real world."


I don't claim to be a financial guru or anything else. All I see is this technology that can be used as a backbone for so many things. And to open it up to a large as possible public we need it to be as viable as possible for everyone. Including the little guys. For that to happen to need the technology to continue maturing as well as grow.

The article you linked refers to someone with a "bitcoin" gambling addiction mixed with very vocal conspiracy theorist that like to bring their political views up at every chance they get.


....
Everything should be the same currency, and Bitcoin is capable of handling microtransactions. I don't understand why people say the opposite.

Not indefinitelly, even with the cap removed completely, networking streamlined, etc. it would still reach a point where bundling small transactions together would be more efficient.

That's just not true, there are already techniques out there that can easily handle 4000 TPS in both network/signing and size.

Here are a few interesting articles:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network
https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/a-scalability-roadmap/
https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/a-bitcoin-backbone/

Hadn't heard about the network in the last link before, looks impressive. Thanks.


Anytime Smiley


Quite spot on for the rest mate,


...

Quote from: stan.distortion
miners rewards

Miners need either;

lots of transactions all paying a little fee
very little amount of transactions paying a large fee

Bitcoin needs prefers to be viable for as many people as possible, so a very little fee per transaction over a large amount of transactions has the preference.

This is what the "people will use bitcoin without knowing it" stands for.



Obviously there is so much more that we can do with blockchain (bitcoin) based solutions/technologies. And I'm very curious and interested to see what the future has to bring.

★  utrum  ★  Your Crypto Playbook  ★  Got an opinion? Get paid for it!  ★
●  ●  WHITE PAPER   |  EXCHANGES   |   ANN THREAD  ●  ●
TWITTER   ▬  FACEBOOK   ▬  LINKEDIN   ▬  GITHUB   ▬  YOUTUBE
ujka
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 04, 2015, 08:42:03 PM
 #487

Been back after few hours, and here 4 pages of FUD to read.
Must agree with

...
Got to say, after reading up on all the reasons against, space and network limitations, miners rewards, propagation times, all the centralisation issues, etc. the most convincing reason I've seen yet to support a hard fork is all the FUD and empty arguments being put forward against it. If they're so eager to flood this thread with the same kind of crap as the speculation subforum there must be something really good about raising the limit.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007


View Profile
February 04, 2015, 09:56:56 PM
 #488

Giving the network more capabilities doesn't change the lying fundamentals of Bitcoin nor the protocol.
Didn't Satoshi consider the 1MB a temporary limit as well?
Except it's not just about "giving the network more capabilities".
Referring to satoshi's supposed authority by the means of your personal interpretation is no argument.

I think that these two examples leave no room to interpretations, sure one can disagree but...

Quote from: satoshi nakamoto on Nov 2008 http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.


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

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
February 04, 2015, 10:17:57 PM
Last edit: February 05, 2015, 07:08:15 AM by solex
 #489

I thought I would have a look at recent blocks >900KB. There are 21 in the last 6 days.

Block_height Block_time Size_KB Num_Tx Fee_BTC
341192   31/01/2015_7:10   976.54   2518   0.3303735   
341226   31/01/2015_13:01   903.09   1106   0.15922165
341305   1/02/2015_1:05   959.89   1320   0.20086461
341313   1/02/2015_2:19   912.48   693   0.2979134
341350   1/02/2015_7:49   975.67   1735   0.263689
341505   2/02/2015_5:11   976.5   735   0.16244257
341517   2/02/2015_7:02   947.72   746   0.14308729
341519   2/02/2015_7:36   957.16   482   0.13242593
341520   2/02/2015_8:02   976.45   1964   0.28018485
341525   2/02/2015_8:35   973.77   844   0.187877
341737   3/02/2015_19:00   976.49   1291   0.18828618
341765   4/02/2015_1:23   976.49   2549   0.35075577
341773   4/02/2015_2:45   941.58   1635   0.22893775
341794   4/02/2015_6:05   976.46   2380   0.31873266
341798   4/02/2015_6:50   971.04   1759   0.24739191
341810   4/02/2015_8:30   976.17   1705   0.25575189
341944   5/02/2015_4:08   976.54   2268   0.30628975
341951   5/02/2015_5:35   974.37   1635   0.23624007
341963   5/02/2015_7:53   976.46   1911   0.27444743
341965   5/02/2015_8:33   976.52   2105   0.2951799   
341967   5/02/2015_9:24   973.82   2675   0.33440304

Average block size = 965KB
Average number of tx = 1622 (or approximately 2.7 TPS)
Average block total fee = 0.25 BTC

These blocks are near to the 1MB limit and do not really permit that much real-world business to be transacted on the main-chain. If the number of people using Bitcoin, worldwide, increased to 10 million then everyone would only be able do one transaction per 43 days. This ignores that some blocks will always be mined small or empty while the reward remains high.

20MB blocks would offer 54 TPS and an average total fee per block of 5 BTC (based on this evidence) which means that fees would be comparable with the reward once the average block size hits 20MB and the reward is down to 6.25 BTC (within 6 years time).

The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.

pawel7777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1080


We're all gonna make it


View Profile WWW
February 04, 2015, 10:51:24 PM
 #490

The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.

Today is the limit increase, what will be tomorrow? Are people really wanting to go all in and bet all the todays consensus on the hard-fork? If you read Gavin post about the need for hard-fork, its a totally fear-based move with arguments Bitcoin will be replaced by Altcoins, this means its a matter of time until another need for a hard-fork happen and next time it wont be as trivial need as just increase block-size. I predict next hard-fork will want to increase the number of coins.

So no arguments against, just anti-fork by the rule? If I'm not mistaken, bitcoin has already been forked twice (2013 and 2010?). Are you sure you're on the very first fork?

RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1002


View Profile
February 04, 2015, 10:53:10 PM
 #491

Why would someone bad intended with a lot of money agree to let your microtransactions happen? He could fill the blocks easily and he could be against raising the limit by owning/renting a lot of mining hashpower. What will you do then when your transaction will require an absurd transaction fee to get propagated?

Well for a starter, people investing in large facilities wouldnt want bitcoin to fail, obviously. So they'd oblige.
Secondly, if the transaction fee gets too high, i guess i'll just have to wait for bitcoin's value to be worth it.
In any case im not planning in spending my bitcoins now, and especially not for frappuccinos..

I think we view things differently. Bitcoin will not fail if people with lots of money will be the only ones using it. That's a wrong assumption in my view. Yes it may fail for you for not being able to use it, but for them it will work as designed.

is ok. I just thought maybe doing 50 cents transactions on btc with that marketcap is less appropriate than doing 50cent transactions on coins with smaller marketcap to keep the btc chain clean for the big stuff.

I don't see what the problem should be to pass microtransactions down to smallcap tipping currencies. It seems logical to me. And the beauty is: this would automatically occure once fees rise.

That's why we love btc: because it regulates itself.

I don't quite understand what you said, but why should the blockchain only be used by the big transactions? It's like saying that Internet should be used by Google and Facebook and the other should use other networks.

Nobody said the growth would stop, what has been said is: hitting the blocklimit will not cause big trouble because the first thing that would happen would be microtransactions for tiny amounts of money happen somewhere else. So all your doom preaching and urgency is invalid.

Hitting the limit will not render btc unusable - in fact it will clean the chain from spammy microtransactions.

So you consider that it's not such a big trouble if the microtransactions don't have the space to happen. I think it's a big trouble because the average Joe will not be able to use bitcoin hassle free. He will need to move his coins to another blockchain to be able to use microtransactions. This will render btc unusable for him which is a big deal.

But i don't see why i need terrabytes on my PC full of satoshi dice crap ...

Again this is a technical challenge that has nothing to do with raising the block limit. Haven't you heard about blockchain pruning? You will not need tons of terrabytes on your PC to host a node so this argument for not doing a fork is simply stupid because it's not a valid argument. It's something that can be fixed!


H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
Quantus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 883
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 04, 2015, 10:59:00 PM
 #492

The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.

Today is the limit increase, what will be tomorrow? Are people really wanting to go all in and bet all the todays consensus on the hard-fork? If you read Gavin post about the need for hard-fork, its a totally fear-based move with arguments Bitcoin will be replaced by Altcoins, this means its a matter of time until another need for a hard-fork happen and next time it wont be as trivial need as just increase block-size. I predict next hard-fork will want to increase the number of coins.

So no arguments against, just anti-fork by the rule? If I'm not mistaken, bitcoin has already been forked twice (2013 and 2010?). Are you sure you're on the very first fork?

The last fork was needed the old chain had a really bad bug so bad that no one wanted to use it and it died. This time both chains would be functional.
Edit: in fact the only people risking anything are those who fork, for those who stick with the original chain they risk nothing because they can chose to switch to the Giga-bloat-coin at any time but then they can't go back to bitcoin.

(I am a 1MB block supporter who thinks all users should be using Full-Node clients)
Avoid the XT shills, they only want to destroy bitcoin, their hubris and greed will destroy us.
Know your adversary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
pawel7777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1080


We're all gonna make it


View Profile WWW
February 04, 2015, 11:07:21 PM
 #493

The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.

Today is the limit increase, what will be tomorrow? Are people really wanting to go all in and bet all the todays consensus on the hard-fork? If you read Gavin post about the need for hard-fork, its a totally fear-based move with arguments Bitcoin will be replaced by Altcoins, this means its a matter of time until another need for a hard-fork happen and next time it wont be as trivial need as just increase block-size. I predict next hard-fork will want to increase the number of coins.

So no arguments against, just anti-fork by the rule? If I'm not mistaken, bitcoin has already been forked twice (2013 and 2010?). Are you sure you're on the very first fork?

The last fork was needed the old chain had a really bad bug so bad that no one wanted to use it and it died. This time both chains would be functional.

Thanks.

Point is, since there were forks in the past (for whatever reason) no one can really use "anti-fork by principle" or "if it's forked - it's no longer Bitcoin" arguments. Unless you're on original (dead) fork, then yes you can.

Grinder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1286
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 04, 2015, 11:09:58 PM
 #494

Gavin does not seem to understand the economics of the block fee. He says that it doesn't matter if there are room for many or few transactions, but in reality it's the equivalent of a Dutch auction. Nobody has to pay more than the lowest winning bid to enter the block, so nobody really has to pay as long as there is room for all the transactions. Even if there is a cost, the cut off price will most likely be less than 1/20 if there is room for 20x more transactions. Personally I never pay unless I'm in a hurry. Unfortunately this means that a 50% attack will become dirt cheap if the price of Bitcoins continues to go down, and/or the block reward has halved a few more times.

Regarding the previous forks they made the whole community scramble in panic to fix it and get everybody to use the same branch. I really don't understand how they can be used as proof that forks are ok.
Quantus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 883
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 04, 2015, 11:14:26 PM
 #495

Gavin does not seem to understand the economics of the block fee. He says that it doesn't matter if there are room for many or few transactions, but in reality it's the equivalent of a Dutch auction. Nobody has to pay more than the lowest winning bid to enter the block, so nobody really has to pay as long as there is room for all the transactions. Even if there is a cost, the cut off price will most likely be less than 1/20 if there is room for 20x more transactions. Personally I never pay unless I'm in a hurry. Unfortunately this means that a 50% attack will become dirt cheap if the price of Bitcoins continues to go down, and/or the block reward has halved a few more times.

Regarding the previous forks they made the whole community scramble in panic to fix it and get everybody to use the same branch. I really don't understand how they can be used as proof that forks are ok.

Yeah Bitcoin was never ment to be 100% free

(I am a 1MB block supporter who thinks all users should be using Full-Node clients)
Avoid the XT shills, they only want to destroy bitcoin, their hubris and greed will destroy us.
Know your adversary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
pawel7777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1080


We're all gonna make it


View Profile WWW
February 04, 2015, 11:14:39 PM
 #496


Just make sure to put my name in the list of people that didnt want to destroy BTC.

Done.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946154

Quantus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 883
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 04, 2015, 11:19:44 PM
 #497

The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.

Today is the limit increase, what will be tomorrow? Are people really wanting to go all in and bet all the todays consensus on the hard-fork? If you read Gavin post about the need for hard-fork, its a totally fear-based move with arguments Bitcoin will be replaced by Altcoins, this means its a matter of time until another need for a hard-fork happen and next time it wont be as trivial need as just increase block-size. I predict next hard-fork will want to increase the number of coins.

So no arguments against, just anti-fork by the rule? If I'm not mistaken, bitcoin has already been forked twice (2013 and 2010?). Are you sure you're on the very first fork?

The last fork was needed the old chain had a really bad bug so bad that no one wanted to use it and it died. This time both chains would be functional.

Thanks.

Point is, since there were forks in the past (for whatever reason) no one can really use "anti-fork by principle" or "if it's forked - it's no longer Bitcoin" arguments. Unless you're on original (dead) fork, then yes you can.


But you are wrong because no Fork in bitcoin history left two viable chains. All the other Forks killed off the other chain, this time both are functional.

(I am a 1MB block supporter who thinks all users should be using Full-Node clients)
Avoid the XT shills, they only want to destroy bitcoin, their hubris and greed will destroy us.
Know your adversary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 04, 2015, 11:38:05 PM
 #498

The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.

Today is the limit increase, what will be tomorrow? Are people really wanting to go all in and bet all the todays consensus on the hard-fork? If you read Gavin post about the need for hard-fork, its a totally fear-based move with arguments Bitcoin will be replaced by Altcoins, this means its a matter of time until another need for a hard-fork happen and next time it wont be as trivial need as just increase block-size. I predict next hard-fork will want to increase the number of coins.

So no arguments against, just anti-fork by the rule? If I'm not mistaken, bitcoin has already been forked twice (2013 and 2010?). Are you sure you're on the very first fork?

The last fork was needed the old chain had a really bad bug so bad that no one wanted to use it and it died. This time both chains would be functional.

Thanks.

Point is, since there were forks in the past (for whatever reason) no one can really use "anti-fork by principle" or "if it's forked - it's no longer Bitcoin" arguments. Unless you're on original (dead) fork, then yes you can.


But you are wrong because no Fork in bitcoin history left two viable chains. All the other Forks killed off the other chain, this time both are functional.

If we fork, there will be ample notice and people will prepare for the move with updates and etc., prob with 3 months advance notice of a date.
Anyone who doesn't move to the new fork will be left behind.
There will not be two valid chains. Only one that is valid and one that was the old chain.
If your stupid enough to purposefully stay on the old chain after the fork, and continue to use it, you will ultimately lose everything.
If we fork, we all move.



I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
Quantus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 883
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 04, 2015, 11:46:47 PM
 #499

The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.

Today is the limit increase, what will be tomorrow? Are people really wanting to go all in and bet all the todays consensus on the hard-fork? If you read Gavin post about the need for hard-fork, its a totally fear-based move with arguments Bitcoin will be replaced by Altcoins, this means its a matter of time until another need for a hard-fork happen and next time it wont be as trivial need as just increase block-size. I predict next hard-fork will want to increase the number of coins.

So no arguments against, just anti-fork by the rule? If I'm not mistaken, bitcoin has already been forked twice (2013 and 2010?). Are you sure you're on the very first fork?

The last fork was needed the old chain had a really bad bug so bad that no one wanted to use it and it died. This time both chains would be functional.

Thanks.

Point is, since there were forks in the past (for whatever reason) no one can really use "anti-fork by principle" or "if it's forked - it's no longer Bitcoin" arguments. Unless you're on original (dead) fork, then yes you can.


But you are wrong because no Fork in bitcoin history left two viable chains. All the other Forks killed off the other chain, this time both are functional.

If we fork, there will be ample notice and people will prepare for the move with updates and etc., prob with 3 months advance notice of a date.
Anyone who doesn't move to the new fork will be left behind.
There will not be two valid chains. Only one that is valid and one that was the old chain.
If your stupid enough to purposefully stay on the old chain after the fork, and continue to use it, you will ultimately lose everything.
If we fork, we all move.







But you are wrong I risk nothing by staying on the old chain its only those who fork that risk anything. I can send my coins to the new Giga-bloatcoin chain at any time. But those on the Bloated new chain can't move back to Bitcoin

(I am a 1MB block supporter who thinks all users should be using Full-Node clients)
Avoid the XT shills, they only want to destroy bitcoin, their hubris and greed will destroy us.
Know your adversary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1882


Red Trust Queen™️


View Profile WWW
February 04, 2015, 11:52:31 PM
 #500

Looks like people who have already been here and lived though the past 2 forks show signs of feeling more confident. I guess the only real argument that could be valid for 'ant-fork' supporters would be economics.              Aside from that I still didn't see anything relevant (I'm not gonna discuss this, because that's not my area of interest).

But you are wrong I risk nothing by staying on the old chain its only those who fork that risk anything. I can send my coins to the new Giga-bloatcoin chain at any time. But those on the Bloated new chain can't move back to Bitcoin
Stop using this term. It is wrong. As it was already stated multiple times in the thread, increasing the limit to 20 MB doesn't mean that the blocks will be full from day 1. The chain will grow bigger over time, not over night.

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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 ... 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!