The hardfork will make Gavincoin plummet to zero

[homo homini lupus]

after this desaster no new investement into any of the forks will occure by any sane person on earth - investors confidence will be lost forever, it is hurt already

[D05GTO]

Too funny, you think you're a wolf praying on the sheep.   

[sgbett]

There is no such thing as gavincoin and mpcoin. OP is part of a co-ordinated smear campaign.

The strategy of OP is not to 'win' any argument about which coin is better - its as a trick to make you accept that there exists 2 coins automatically by arguing for one of them.

There is only one coin, Bitcoin. There will be an update of the software, it will be well telegraphed, everyone will upgrade in plenty of time. Once the date passes then miners will be able to create bigger blocks when they need to, once that happens then people who haven't bothered to upgrade will suffer. They will be forced to upgrade because otherwise they will not be able to mine anymore.

There will be no drama when this happens. There is no 'other' coin. There is no debate. The OP is just trying to drum up interest for their boss MP who's argument is that changing the block size is heresy, despite satoshi himself having said that this change can be phased in exactly how it is going to be

He well understood the network needed to scale http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

The only people that really have a problem with this (aside from the short interested bears simply glomming onto it as a way to talk dow the price) are those that fail to understand the most simple math.

1MB blocks mean a maximum of ~4000 transactions * 0.0001 transaction fee = 0.4 BTC max potential fees for a mined block
20MB blocks mean a maximum of ~80000 transaction * 0.0001 transaction fee = 8 BTC max potential fees for a mined block

Gavin's proposal isn't lets go to 20mb blocks and leave it at that though, it's lets scale max block size over time

If you think limiting the block size will make people pay for transactions you are ignoring i) the most basic principals of human nature ii) sidechains, alts and the million other ways that people can transact of chain to avoid paying higher fees.

What it also fails to acknowledge is that one of the big argument for bitcoin is "no/low fees". How is that going to remain the case if now we are saying that actually you have to pay fees to get your transaction in the next block. It just doeasn't make any sense.

The *only* way for fees to take over from the block reward as the main source of revenue is by increasing the volume of transactions such that tiny fees per transaction add up to something worthwhile.

Its really simple maths.

Don't let people distract you from the simple maths with their imaginary drama.

[homo homini lupus]

^^^
misinfo/disinfo

[sgbett]

^^^
misinfo/disinfo

what a compelling counter argument to the facts I presented. bravo.

[homo homini lupus]

^^^
misinfo/disinfo

what a compelling counter argument to the facts I presented. bravo.

man, people need to inform themselves. I really don't have the nerves to refute all propaganda 10 times.

You say 'there is only one bitcoin'
correct and that's Mpcoin as it is the unforked chain and 1 to 1 bitcoin of today. Gavincoin is per definition a fork of bitcoin and thus an altcoin. (to put it really short)

you trying to tell people a second fork wouldn't exist is wrong information. With 100% certainty after the hardfork two 'bitcoins' will exist. (Gavincoin/Mpcoin)

[Bernard Lerring]

Great post, sgbett.

On one side people criticise Bitcoin for being old technology (oh, really?) and on the other hand people slag off a change in the protocol. Damned if you do...

It also helped me understand how the switch will happen. It seems more seamless than I imagined.

[homo homini lupus]

Great post, sgbett.

On one side people criticise Bitcoin for being old technology (oh, really?) and on the other hand people slag off a change in the protocol. Damned if you do...

It also helped me understand how the switch will happen. It seems more seamless than I imagined.

well, fork without consensus ... haha ... it's really a joke.

[trackermut]

Really! is this what the forum has become, a mouth peace for FUD, OP get a real job and fork off!!

[BCwinning]

I don't plan on supporting the fork. I want more proposals and more options besides just gavins that obviously doesn't have the full community support. If there is going to be a hard fork; there are other things that need done at that time as well to prevent future hard forks from happening within the next decade again.

[homo homini lupus]

I don't plan on supporting the fork. I want more proposals and more options besides just gavins that obviously doesn't have the full community support. If there is going to be a hard fork; there are other things that need done at that time as well to prevent future hard forks from happening within the next decade again.

+1

the whole approach is bullshit so far

- no other proposals
- no consensus
- not even an urgent need to fork (some supporters of the gavinfork want tell you that it would be urgent but that has been shown to be wrong)

-----------

basically the community is devided in the people who think and talk sense and know the original purpose of the coin aswell as have a basic understanding of the tech and on the other side is the camp of the greedy sheep who don't give a fuck and tell everyone "just follow in line"

-----------

people need to inform themselves to protect their finances and be able to make educated decisions.

[QuantumCurrency]

What hard fork? I have not heard of any official anything at this time...?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I agree that a growing size of the blockchain is a potential issue.  However, there seem to be lots of improvements in the number and quality of light clients that don't require users to download the entire blockchain.  Furthermore, as merchants use payment providers, it may not be an issue at all.

Basically users of gavincoin give up their souvereignity and direct control over the coins. They will be incapacitated in no time.

You think Mirceacoin is going to fly? Good luck with your civil war I'm sure

[dasource]

There is no such thing as gavincoin and mpcoin. OP is part of a co-ordinated smear campaign.

The strategy of OP is not to 'win' any argument about which coin is better - its as a trick to make you accept that there exists 2 coins automatically by arguing for one of them.

There is only one coin, Bitcoin. There will be an update of the software, it will be well telegraphed, everyone will upgrade in plenty of time. Once the date passes then miners will be able to create bigger blocks when they need to, once that happens then people who haven't bothered to upgrade will suffer. They will be forced to upgrade because otherwise they will not be able to mine anymore.

There will be no drama when this happens. There is no 'other' coin. There is no debate. The OP is just trying to drum up interest for their boss MP who's argument is that changing the block size is heresy, despite satoshi himself having said that this change can be phased in exactly how it is going to be

He well understood the network needed to scale http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

The only people that really have a problem with this (aside from the short interested bears simply glomming onto it as a way to talk dow the price) are those that fail to understand the most simple math.

1MB blocks mean a maximum of ~4000 transactions * 0.0001 transaction fee = 0.4 BTC max potential fees for a mined block
20MB blocks mean a maximum of ~80000 transaction * 0.0001 transaction fee = 8 BTC max potential fees for a mined block

Gavin's proposal isn't lets go to 20mb blocks and leave it at that though, it's lets scale max block size over time

If you think limiting the block size will make people pay for transactions you are ignoring i) the most basic principals of human nature ii) sidechains, alts and the million other ways that people can transact of chain to avoid paying higher fees.

What it also fails to acknowledge is that one of the big argument for bitcoin is "no/low fees". How is that going to remain the case if now we are saying that actually you have to pay fees to get your transaction in the next block. It just doeasn't make any sense.

The *only* way for fees to take over from the block reward as the main source of revenue is by increasing the volume of transactions such that tiny fees per transaction add up to something worthwhile.

Its really simple maths.

Don't let people distract you from the simple maths with their imaginary drama.

Just in case you missed it OP!!!

[onemorebtc]

if an hardfork is urgent it is too late.
an hardfork needs to be planned - otherwise its chaos.

it just matters what miners and exchanges do: ALL others wills follow - even the mp crowd

i would remove the block limit all together (including the message-size-limit around 30mb) and let the free market decide what is best.

edit:

OP is part of a co-ordinated smear campaign

i second that.

[BCwinning]

I don't plan on supporting the fork. I want more proposals and more options besides just gavins that obviously doesn't have the full community support. If there is going to be a hard fork; there are other things that need done at that time as well to prevent future hard forks from happening within the next decade again.

+1

the whole approach is bullshit so far

- no other proposals
- no consensus
- not even an urgent need to fork (some supporters of the gavinfork want tell you that it would be urgent but that has been shown to be wrong)

-----------

basically the community is devided in the people who think and talk sense and know the original purpose of the coin aswell as have a basic understanding of the tech and on the other side is the camp of the greedy sheep who don't give a fuck and tell everyone "just follow in line"

-----------

people need to inform themselves to protect their finances and be able to make educated decisions.

completely agree.
I get the "whole sky is falling" vibe with his hard fork proposal and for not doing shit in the last 5 years.
It really can wait a while longer to hash out more ideals.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

There is no such thing as gavincoin and mpcoin. OP is part of a co-ordinated smear campaign.

The strategy of OP is not to 'win' any argument about which coin is better - its as a trick to make you accept that there exists 2 coins automatically by arguing for one of them.

There is only one coin, Bitcoin. There will be an update of the software, it will be well telegraphed, everyone will upgrade in plenty of time. Once the date passes then miners will be able to create bigger blocks when they need to, once that happens then people who haven't bothered to upgrade will suffer. They will be forced to upgrade because otherwise they will not be able to mine anymore.

There will be no drama when this happens. There is no 'other' coin. There is no debate. The OP is just trying to drum up interest for their boss MP who's argument is that changing the block size is heresy, despite satoshi himself having said that this change can be phased in exactly how it is going to be

He well understood the network needed to scale http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

The only people that really have a problem with this (aside from the short interested bears simply glomming onto it as a way to talk dow the price) are those that fail to understand the most simple math.

1MB blocks mean a maximum of ~4000 transactions * 0.0001 transaction fee = 0.4 BTC max potential fees for a mined block
20MB blocks mean a maximum of ~80000 transaction * 0.0001 transaction fee = 8 BTC max potential fees for a mined block

Gavin's proposal isn't lets go to 20mb blocks and leave it at that though, it's lets scale max block size over time

If you think limiting the block size will make people pay for transactions you are ignoring i) the most basic principals of human nature ii) sidechains, alts and the million other ways that people can transact of chain to avoid paying higher fees.

What it also fails to acknowledge is that one of the big argument for bitcoin is "no/low fees". How is that going to remain the case if now we are saying that actually you have to pay fees to get your transaction in the next block. It just doeasn't make any sense.

The *only* way for fees to take over from the block reward as the main source of revenue is by increasing the volume of transactions such that tiny fees per transaction add up to something worthwhile.

Its really simple maths.

Don't let people distract you from the simple maths with their imaginary drama.

Don't forget to read this OP. I even increased the size for you.

[homo homini lupus]

completely agree.
I get the "whole sky is falling" vibe with his hard fork proposal and for not doing shit in the last 5 years.
It really can wait a while longer to hash out more ideals.

it has been shown that once blocklimit would be reached fees would of course rise and a free market effect for txs would take hold (if you want fast transaction, pay higher fees). The first effect of this would be to drive a lot of the spamming microtransactions like satoshi dice for 50cents worth a bet and things like that off the chain. That's probably already 20% or 30% of the traffic. So the propaganda of 'the chain comes to a halt' is fearmongering and only serves the purpose of bullying everyone into accepting the gavinfork without a second thought.  

[onemorebtc]

completely agree.
I get the "whole sky is falling" vibe with his hard fork proposal and for not doing shit in the last 5 years.
It really can wait a while longer to hash out more ideals.

it has been shown that once blocklimit would be reached fees would of course rise and a free market effect for txs would take hold (if you want fast transaction, pay higher fees). The first effect of this would be to drive a lot of the spamming microtransactions like satoshi dice for 50cents worth a bet and things like that off the chain. That's probably already 20% or 30% of the traffic. So the propaganda of 'the chain comes to a halt' is fearmongering and only serves the purpose of bullying everyone into accepting the gavinfork without a second thought. 

if miners want higher fees they can simply make blocks smaller. they can do this know - but atm the block reward is so much higher than all fees combined that there is no need for them to do this.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

completely agree.
I get the "whole sky is falling" vibe with his hard fork proposal and for not doing shit in the last 5 years.
It really can wait a while longer to hash out more ideals.

it has been shown that once blocklimit would be reached fees would of course rise and a free market effect for txs would take hold (if you want fast transaction, pay higher fees). The first effect of this would be to drive a lot of the spamming microtransactions like satoshi dice for 50cents worth a bet and things like that off the chain. That's probably already 20% or 30% of the traffic. So the propaganda of 'the chain comes to a halt' is fearmongering and only serves the purpose of bullying everyone into accepting the gavinfork without a second thought.  

Once the MirceaPopescufork occurs, Mirceacoin will be all his. What is YOUR point here?