Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ...

[smoothie]

Bitcoin ... 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.

Satoshi Nakamoto - Bitcoin Whitepaper

Limiting bitcoin to 1 MB forces users of bitcoin to use a 3rd party financial institution (Blockstream / Lightning Network).

Which goes against the very reason bitcoin was created.

[1714045074]

1714045074

[1714045074]

1714045074

[1714045074]

1714045074

[smoothie]

bump because this is worth a read to the " noobs "

no, its not.

this was worth a bump. People need to realize what the purpose of bitcoin was and how Satoshi envisioned it to grow.

Keeping 1 MB cap =/= growth.

[bitboy11]

It seems that increasing the block size may negatively affect the current ASIC mining pools and they may potentially abandon Bitcoin if it becomes unprofitable for them. Consequently, this should allow an opportunity for a massive influx of GPU and CPU miners to return to the system. This is actually a good thing because since the arrival of ASICS, there are now hundreds of thousands of new bitcoin enthusiasts. This means that with more potential individual miners, the more decentralized Bitcoin will become!

[hdbuck]

bump because this is worth a read to the " noobs "

no, its not.

this was worth a bump. People need to realize what the purpose of bitcoin was and how Satoshi envisioned it to grow.

Keeping 1 MB cap =/= growth.

stop extrapolating the vision of somebody you know nothing about.

+ i have never said 1MBcap for-freakin-ever. Mr extrapolator.

[smoothie]

It seems that increasing the block size may negatively affect the current ASIC mining pools and they may potentially abandon Bitcoin if it becomes unprofitable for them. Consequently, this should allow an opportunity for a massive influx of GPU and CPU miners to return to the system. This is actually a good thing because since the arrival of ASICS, there are now hundreds of thousands of new bitcoin enthusiasts. This means that with more potential individual miners, the more decentralized Bitcoin will become!

How did you come to the conclusion?

The changing of the 1 MB cap would instnatly make ASIC mining pools irrelevant?

How so?

[smoothie]

bump because this is worth a read to the " noobs "

no, its not.

this was worth a bump. People need to realize what the purpose of bitcoin was and how Satoshi envisioned it to grow.

Keeping 1 MB cap =/= growth.

stop extrapolating the vision of somebody you know nothing about.

+ i have never said 1MBcap for-freakin-ever. Mr extrapolator.

lol oh let's be presumptuous.

Stop assuming I know nothing about Satoshi. Let's stop with the personal attacks and stick to the topic at hand buddy.

First off you indicated that it would be not worth reading this main post of D&T for "noobs".

I think reading it does bring lots of things into clear perspective.

[hdbuck]

bump because this is worth a read to the " noobs "

no, its not.

this was worth a bump. People need to realize what the purpose of bitcoin was and how Satoshi envisioned it to grow.

Keeping 1 MB cap =/= growth.

stop extrapolating the vision of somebody you know nothing about.

+ i have never said 1MBcap for-freakin-ever. Mr extrapolator.

lol oh let's be presumptuous.

Stop assuming I know nothing about Satoshi. Let's stop with the personal attacks and stick to the topic at hand buddy.

First off you indicated that it would be not worth reading this main post of D&T for "noobs".

I think reading it does bring lots of things into clear perspective.

noobs, redditards, whatever, this propaganda thread perfectly served the USGavin and GOOGLHearn FUD.

Bitcoin is not some paypal-visa-mastercard alike service, and not some yappy-yay way to tip the little african with frappuccinos.

finally, nobody knows nothing about satoshi. so just stop godifying each of his word, like "oh hey thats what he wants, means, shits..".
people dont even know if its a single person or a group, nsa or cypherpunk, blabla, wtf im out of this nonsense. peace.

[acquafredda]

The opening page was really worth a read: whatever one might think it is important to be well informed before saying anything regarding the matter.
I'm not an expert but seeing the enormous division this thing is crate amongst everybody in here I think we should be more intelligent and more humble to take the time to think before saying anything.

thanks smoothie by the way..

[ABitNut]

bump because this is worth a read to the " noobs "

no, its not.

this was worth a bump. People need to realize what the purpose of bitcoin was and how Satoshi envisioned it to grow.

Keeping 1 MB cap =/= growth.

stop extrapolating the vision of somebody you know nothing about.

+ i have never said 1MBcap for-freakin-ever. Mr extrapolator.

lol oh let's be presumptuous.

Stop assuming I know nothing about Satoshi. Let's stop with the personal attacks and stick to the topic at hand buddy.

First off you indicated that it would be not worth reading this main post of D&T for "noobs".

I think reading it does bring lots of things into clear perspective.

noobs, redditards, whatever, this propaganda thread perfectly served the USGavin and GOOGLHearn FUD.

Bitcoin is not some paypal-visa-mastercard alike service, and not some yappy-yay way to tip the little african with frappuccinos.

finally, nobody knows nothing about satoshi. so just stop godifying each of his word, like "oh hey thats what he wants, means, shits..".
people dont even know if its a single person or a group, nsa or cypherpunk, blabla, wtf im out of this nonsense. peace.

You call this thread FUD. Yet your post spreads FUD way more than the OP. "USGavin" "GOOGLHearn". You sure got them there! </sarcasm>
If you have some sound arguments refuting the OP then by all means share them. Just my 2 cents.

[hdbuck]

bump because this is worth a read to the " noobs "

no, its not.

this was worth a bump. People need to realize what the purpose of bitcoin was and how Satoshi envisioned it to grow.

Keeping 1 MB cap =/= growth.

stop extrapolating the vision of somebody you know nothing about.

+ i have never said 1MBcap for-freakin-ever. Mr extrapolator.

lol oh let's be presumptuous.

Stop assuming I know nothing about Satoshi. Let's stop with the personal attacks and stick to the topic at hand buddy.

First off you indicated that it would be not worth reading this main post of D&T for "noobs".

I think reading it does bring lots of things into clear perspective.

noobs, redditards, whatever, this propaganda thread perfectly served the USGavin and GOOGLHearn FUD.

Bitcoin is not some paypal-visa-mastercard alike service, and not some yappy-yay way to tip the little african with frappuccinos.

finally, nobody knows nothing about satoshi. so just stop godifying each of his word, like "oh hey thats what he wants, means, shits..".
people dont even know if its a single person or a group, nsa or cypherpunk, blabla, wtf im out of this nonsense. peace.

You call this thread FUD. Yet your post spreads FUD way more than the OP. "USGavin" "GOOGLHearn". You sure got them there! </sarcasm>
If you have some sound arguments refuting the OP then by all means share them. Just my 2 cents.

keep your two cents and read the whole thread then... my arguments are all over it.

[smoothie]

The opening page was really worth a read: whatever one might think it is important to be well informed before saying anything regarding the matter.
I'm not an expert but seeing the enormous division this thing is crate amongst everybody in here I think we should be more intelligent and more humble to take the time to think before saying anything.

thanks smoothie by the way..

no problem. It is good to be informed.

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoin is not some paypal-visa-mastercard alike service, and not some yappy-yay way to tip the little african with frappuccinos.

Lost it at "yappy-yay."   

I'm stealing that, and the first thing I'll do with it is describe the Gavinista, sorry, XT Manifesto.

Don't blame smoothie for being mr extrapolator.  The OP started the strawman extrapolation by including the "Permanently keeping" operator, in order to frame all who disagree as irrational, extremist 'always and never' types (always 1MB, never moar).

Too bad for D&T his huffing and puffing failed to blow Core's house down and remake Bitcoin in the image of Square.  It was a nice try, to be sure.   

[bitboy11]

It seems that increasing the block size may negatively affect the current ASIC mining pools and they may potentially abandon Bitcoin if it becomes unprofitable for them. Consequently, this should allow an opportunity for a massive influx of GPU and CPU miners to return to the system. This is actually a good thing because since the arrival of ASICS, there are now hundreds of thousands of new bitcoin enthusiasts. This means that with more potential individual miners, the more decentralized Bitcoin will become!

How did you come to the conclusion?

The changing of the 1 MB cap would instnatly make ASIC mining pools irrelevant?

How so?

I inferred that by increasing the block size to 20 MB, the current ASIC miners would have to do a lot more work, burn a lot more electricity and probably have to add a lot more ASIC hardware in order to continue operations in the future for very little extra gain. Some of them will continue to make a profit, some of them will break even, while others may accrue a loss. As a result of this unprofitability over time, some of those miners will abandon Bitcoin. Never did I mention that ALL ASIC miners would abandon Bitcoin nor did I use the word "instantly".

In addition, with all of the centralized ASIC miner "factories" out there, if in time, they become unprofitable to maintain and decide to pull out of the "game", it will be a huge blow to the processing power of Bitcoin and result in major setbacks in terms of transaction time.

People are erroneously assuming that somehow Bitcoin will collapse if the above scenario were to play out. I am saying that individual miners will simply pick up the slack and eventually return Bitcoin to a decentralized network of peers. This is not 2012 when there were probably only about 10,000 people involved in Bitcoin. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of people involved in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Imagine the combined power of all those CPUs and GPUs connected to the blockchain. I'm not sure if it would be as powerful as the ASIC network is today but I'm pretty sure it would still make a very robust network.

That's all I'm saying!

PS - What happened to ASIC Cloud Mining on CEX and other sites? Looks like it "instantly" disappeared.
I wonder why?
Unprofitability... I presume!

[meono]

It seems that increasing the block size may negatively affect the current ASIC mining pools and they may potentially abandon Bitcoin if it becomes unprofitable for them. Consequently, this should allow an opportunity for a massive influx of GPU and CPU miners to return to the system. This is actually a good thing because since the arrival of ASICS, there are now hundreds of thousands of new bitcoin enthusiasts. This means that with more potential individual miners, the more decentralized Bitcoin will become!

How did you come to the conclusion?

The changing of the 1 MB cap would instnatly make ASIC mining pools irrelevant?

How so?

I inferred that by increasing the block size to 20 MB, the current ASIC miners would have to do a lot more work, burn a lot more electricity and probably have to add a lot more ASIC hardware in order to continue operations in the future for very little extra gain. Some of them will continue to make a profit, some of them will break even, while others may accrue a loss. As a result of this unprofitability over time, some of those miners will abandon Bitcoin. Never did I mention that ALL ASIC miners would abandon Bitcoin nor did I use the word "instantly".

In addition, with all of the centralized ASIC miner "factories" out there, if in time, they become unprofitable to maintain and decide to pull out of the "game", it will be a huge blow to the processing power of Bitcoin and result in major setbacks in terms of transaction time.

People are erroneously assuming that somehow Bitcoin will collapse if the above scenario were to play out. I am saying that individual miners will simply pick up the slack and eventually return Bitcoin to a decentralized network of peers. This is not 2012 when there were probably only about 10,000 people involved in Bitcoin. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of people involved in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Imagine the combined power of all those CPUs and GPUs connected to the blockchain. I'm not sure if it would be as powerful as the ASIC network is today but I'm pretty sure it would still make a very robust network.

That's all I'm saying!

PS - What happened to ASIC Cloud Mining on CEX and other sites? Looks like it "instantly" disappeared.
I wonder why?
Unprofitability... I presume!

Holyshit, the bold part..... My eyesbrowns jump off my face.... speechless.

[iCEBREAKER]

The opening page was really worth a read: whatever one might think it is important to be well informed before saying anything regarding the matter.
I'm not an expert but seeing the enormous division this thing is crate amongst everybody in here I think we should be more intelligent and more humble to take the time to think before saying anything.

thanks smoothie by the way..

no problem. It is good to be informed.

This thread is also very informative:

Bitcoin 20MB Fork
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.0

But it's locked.  Gavin drops in a few times to fail at defending his 20MB gigablocks.

I think we should target somebody with a "pretty good" computer and a "pretty good" home internet connection.

...

The promise of a system that could scale up to rival Visa is part of the vision that sold me on Bitcoin.

Visa scale.  On a "pretty good" computer and a "pretty good" home internet connection.  Using Bitcoin's inefficient-for-everything-except-security decentralized Blockchain.

Seems legit.   

[turvarya]

It seems that increasing the block size may negatively affect the current ASIC mining pools and they may potentially abandon Bitcoin if it becomes unprofitable for them. Consequently, this should allow an opportunity for a massive influx of GPU and CPU miners to return to the system. This is actually a good thing because since the arrival of ASICS, there are now hundreds of thousands of new bitcoin enthusiasts. This means that with more potential individual miners, the more decentralized Bitcoin will become!

How did you come to the conclusion?

The changing of the 1 MB cap would instnatly make ASIC mining pools irrelevant?

How so?

I inferred that by increasing the block size to 20 MB, the current ASIC miners would have to do a lot more work, burn a lot more electricity and probably have to add a lot more ASIC hardware in order to continue operations in the future for very little extra gain. Some of them will continue to make a profit, some of them will break even, while others may accrue a loss. As a result of this unprofitability over time, some of those miners will abandon Bitcoin. Never did I mention that ALL ASIC miners would abandon Bitcoin nor did I use the word "instantly".

In addition, with all of the centralized ASIC miner "factories" out there, if in time, they become unprofitable to maintain and decide to pull out of the "game", it will be a huge blow to the processing power of Bitcoin and result in major setbacks in terms of transaction time.

People are erroneously assuming that somehow Bitcoin will collapse if the above scenario were to play out. I am saying that individual miners will simply pick up the slack and eventually return Bitcoin to a decentralized network of peers. This is not 2012 when there were probably only about 10,000 people involved in Bitcoin. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of people involved in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Imagine the combined power of all those CPUs and GPUs connected to the blockchain. I'm not sure if it would be as powerful as the ASIC network is today but I'm pretty sure it would still make a very robust network.

That's all I'm saying!

PS - What happened to ASIC Cloud Mining on CEX and other sites? Looks like it "instantly" disappeared.
I wonder why?
Unprofitability... I presume!

You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.

@iCEBREAKER
Show me the quote, where D&T supports BitcoinXT. As far as I remember, he never did.

[iCEBREAKER]

Show me the quote, where D&T supports BitcoinXT. As far as I remember, he never did.

I don't know if D&T specifically supports XT, but his only significance at this point is as the first to rage-quit over not getting his way with larger blocks.

That makes him a honorary Gavinista!   

[onemorexmr]

Show me the quote, where D&T supports BitcoinXT. As far as I remember, he never did.

I don't know if D&T specifically supports XT, but his only significance at this point is as the first to rage-quit over not getting his way with larger blocks.

That makes him a honorary Gavinista!   

not anybody liking bigger blocks is a Gavinista.

i am pro-bigger-blocks because i want that anybody is able to use bitcoin; not just a few people (which may use tor or not: who cares...  it isnt a technology for the people then)

[iCEBREAKER]

not anybody liking bigger blocks is a Gavinista.

Of course not.  But rage-quitting because you don't get your way is the XT approach, so D&T gets an honorary Gavinista title.   

[ABitNut]

You call this thread FUD. Yet your post spreads FUD way more than the OP. "USGavin" "GOOGLHearn". You sure got them there! </sarcasm>
If you have some sound arguments refuting the OP then by all means share them. Just my 2 cents.

keep your two cents and read the whole thread then... my arguments are all over it.

When you say "my arguments are all over it." are you referring to these three posts:

Check this :  Why would anyone host a 1 MB full node if they can only use the blockchain once per decade?  (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2vec37/why_would_anyone_host_a_1_mb_full_node_if_they/)

I hear such arguments, but it is the +1Billion users postulate that sounds kinda cultish to me.

"Bitcoin for 7billion people", "Bitcoin for Africa", "Bitcoin for unbanked"..
I ear this a lot but think that this is nothing close to reality.

Masses just really dont give a dam about finance, monetary policies or internet of things. They need jobs and food.

Check this :  Why would anyone host a 1 MB full node if they can only use the blockchain once per decade?  (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2vec37/why_would_anyone_host_a_1_mb_full_node_if_they/)

I hear such arguments, but it is the +1Billion users postulate that sounds kinda cultish to me.

"Bitcoin for 7billion people", "Bitcoin for Africa", "Bitcoin for unbanked"..
I ear this a lot but think that this is nothing close to reality.

Masses just really dont give a dam about finance, monetary policies or internet of things. They need jobs and food.

Yes of course , bitcoin is for all the world but some people don't have neither the access on internet/smartphone (with 3G). So you are right, for the moment not all the people can use bitcoin but this fork is necessary at least for rise the limit of TX per second.

All im saying is that whatever happens, try not to 'put the cart before the horse' gents.

was it already argued that not raising the block size leads to fractional reserve banking? - this system then basically becomes the same shit as the banking industry.

not if you hoard your bitcoins.. all hail the new bankers

Or is there another thread where you've formulated your position with arguments to support it?