Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[davout]

along the altcoin fork keeping the current 1MB cap

You seem to be living in a parallel universe where your statements become true just because you state them.

[1714998034]

1714998034

[1714998034]

1714998034

[1714998034]

1714998034

[1714998034]

1714998034

[zimmah]

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

[amincd]

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

This is why the fork needs to happen sooner rather than later. The longer the temporary 1 MB (anti-spam) restriction is in place, the more people will come to think that it is a critical part of Bitcoin that needs to be made permanent. And the larger the community is, the harder it is to gain everyone's support for a hard fork. A hard fork will never have as much support as it does now.

[Sitarow]

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

This is why the fork needs to happen sooner rather than later. The longer the temporary 1 MB (anti-spam) restriction is in place, the more people will come to think that it is a critical part of Bitcoin that needs to be made permanent. And the larger the community is, the harder it is to gain everyone's support for a hard fork. A hard fork will never have as much support as it does now.

You do realize that the old btc network will die simply because of the size of the network difficulty? If anything the old nodes would presents a great opportunity to test the 51% double spend.

[CoinCidental]

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

only 20% is anti

the rest dont even know enough to vote one way or the other

so the argument could be made that 80%+ will be  in favour when they learn more about how important this is

[pawel7777]

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

only 20% is anti

the rest dont even know enough to vote one way or the other

so the argument could be made that 80%+ will be  in favour when they learn more about how important this is

If you ignore 'agnostics' and 'DGAFs' you'll get:

202 pro  74%
71 anti  26%

But let's not pretend this poll is a solid indicator of anything. The vast majority of users is probably not aware of technical details and implications.

[homo homini lupus]

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

only 20% is anti

the rest dont even know enough to vote one way or the other

so the argument could be made that 80%+ will be  in favour when they learn more about how important this is

If you ignore 'agnostics' and 'DGAFs' you'll get:

202 pro  74%
71 anti  26%

But let's not pretend this poll is a solid indicator of anything. The vast majority of users is probably not aware of technical details and implications.

The vast majority won't use Gavincoin with that requirements of hardware and bandwidth. Nobody is going to upgrade their system all the time just to be able to run Gavincoin.


Lol - gavincoin doesn't even have a usecase. And also doesn't have users. The only users will be the current bagholders and that's it. There is zero probability it can compete with more efficient coins for new users.

Lol. The poll on the thread is just a poll "am i a sheep that follows the flock?" - yes or no

lmao

[Buffer Overflow]

I hope everyone realises that at some point we will need to change over to a quantum safe keys such as Lamport signatures to protect our private keys. These will invariably require more block space.
I'm not an expert on the subject so please correct me if I'm wrong on this matter.

[LeMiner]

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

only 20% is anti

the rest dont even know enough to vote one way or the other

so the argument could be made that 80%+ will be  in favour when they learn more about how important this is

If you ignore 'agnostics' and 'DGAFs' you'll get:

202 pro  74%
71 anti  26%

But let's not pretend this poll is a solid indicator of anything. The vast majority of users is probably not aware of technical details and implications.

The vast majority won't use Gavincoin with that requirements of hardware and bandwidth. Nobody is going to upgrade their system all the time just to be able to run Gavincoin.


Lol - gavincoin doesn't even have a usecase. And also doesn't have users. The only users will be the current bagholders and that's it. There is zero probability it can compete with more efficient coins for new users.

Lol. The poll on the thread is just a poll "am i a sheep that follows the flock?" - yes or no

lmao

It's hilarious how you didn't bother to respond to even the slightest of sense that buries all your arguments against the fork into the ground, for example, my previous argument.

[Buffer Overflow]

Lol. The poll on the thread is just a poll "am i a sheep that follows the flock?" - yes or no

Listen, I'm up for changing the cap, but if the majority choose to stick with the current cap I would choose that chain. It's the sensible thing to do, it's not being a sheep, it's being wise.
Stay stubborn and inflexible, and you will lose.

[homo homini lupus]

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

only 20% is anti

the rest dont even know enough to vote one way or the other

so the argument could be made that 80%+ will be  in favour when they learn more about how important this is

If you ignore 'agnostics' and 'DGAFs' you'll get:

202 pro  74%
71 anti  26%

But let's not pretend this poll is a solid indicator of anything. The vast majority of users is probably not aware of technical details and implications.

The vast majority won't use Gavincoin with that requirements of hardware and bandwidth. Nobody is going to upgrade their system all the time just to be able to run Gavincoin.


Lol - gavincoin doesn't even have a usecase. And also doesn't have users. The only users will be the current bagholders and that's it. There is zero probability it can compete with more efficient coins for new users.

Lol. The poll on the thread is just a poll "am i a sheep that follows the flock?" - yes or no

lmao

It's hilarious how you didn't bother to respond to even the slightest of sense that buries all your arguments against the fork into the ground, for example, my previous argument.

you fell off the filter as tl,dr

[Buffer Overflow]

Extremely good post by D&T, worth a read...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

[altcoin hitler]

[Buffer Overflow]

Extremely good post by D&T, worth a read...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

So that's your best response to D&T's post.
*facepalm*

[homo homini lupus]

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

only 20% is anti

the rest dont even know enough to vote one way or the other

so the argument could be made that 80%+ will be  in favour when they learn more about how important this is

If you ignore 'agnostics' and 'DGAFs' you'll get:

202 pro  74%
71 anti  26%

But let's not pretend this poll is a solid indicator of anything. The vast majority of users is probably not aware of technical details and implications.

The vast majority won't use Gavincoin with that requirements of hardware and bandwidth. Nobody is going to upgrade their system all the time just to be able to run Gavincoin.


Lol - gavincoin doesn't even have a usecase. And also doesn't have users. The only users will be the current bagholders and that's it. There is zero probability it can compete with more efficient coins for new users.

Lol. The poll on the thread is just a poll "am i a sheep that follows the flock?" - yes or no

lmao

This is so wrong, you need to read more than 1 page. The change would bring no immediate change, the only time we would see any change is when the previous blocks would have been full but instead of the transactions being delayed by a block and clogging it increases in size. For the Size to get to even 5mb a block would probably take a year or 2. By the time the it gets larger our Hard drives and bandwidth will grow with it, so no it will not make it hard to meet the requirements and it doesn't need to increase their system all the time probably just increase your hard drive within the next 5 years (Which i assume most do with or without noticing)

The OP gives a valid technical argument for raising block size limit, but is neglecting a financial argument against it.

The miners' income has to be greater than the cost of their work. Miners' income is inflation now, but is expected to be replaced by fees,
since inflation halves every four years. Purchasing power of new coins might be sustained for a while but must converge to zero in the limit.

Transaction fees exist only because there is a competition for block space. Eliminating that competition eliminates the fees and with that mining.

Therefore block space has to become and remain a scarce asset.

please tell me more how my harddrive magically grows

[altcoin hitler]

[R2D221]

We mustn't try to include worldwide transactions in the blockchain

Why not? I think that's the ultimate goal (even if a little unrealistic at this point).

[altcoin hitler]

We mustn't try to include worldwide transactions in the blockchain

Why not? I think that's the ultimate goal (even if a little unrealistic at this point).

[Lauda]

I'm for increase of block size, even if I believe Bitcoin to be a store of value that you won't use so often to transact directly.

But ~5 transactions per second is not enough.

We mustn't try to include worldwide transactions in the blockchain, but 5 ts seams really to low for me, and as it was explained before, if we don't do this, we will loose ability to transact directly.

The worst part of it all is that the current limit doesn't even support 5 TPS. According to D&T it is even lower.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

Pretty much wins against all those 'anti' arguments. He pretty much explained almost all aspects relevant to the fork.

Yet 1 more time:
Increasing the block size limit by a factor of 20 does not increase the size of the blockchain by the same factor! The chain will grow gradually over time.

[Buffer Overflow]

The worst part of it all is that the current limit doesn't even support 5 TPS. According to D&T it is even lower.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

Yeah, at best 2 to 4 tps using 1MB. That's even worse than I thought.