Bankers are shitting their pants over the idea that millions of peoples around the globe are going to install the original
program made by Satoshi Nakamoto, no matter what brand (Classic Core, XT).

Wrong. Bankers are praying to the gods that the community is divided so it can be weakened and overtaken.

For Bitcoin to survive, we need to fix the problem at its Core! We must not tolerate businesses influencing core developers. This is the key. The community needs to support the developers not coinbase and blocksteam.

Wal-Mart doesn't tell Apple how to design iPhones, and Shoe Carnival doesn't control Nike. Jesus Christ, Brian Armstrong doesn't even know the difference between a soft fork and a hard fork. Why is he even talking about what core should do?



http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30817/what-is-a-soft-fork

small block lovers think that blocks need to be 200mb(doomsday) tomorrow or 1mb..
they never see the lack of logic in their own mindset. that growth can be slow and gentle and managable..

simply waiting for the bottlenecks, instead of expanding in small amounts to allow for a buffer of safety. is just as bad as jumping to far ahead..
thats why i hate both the 8mb proposal and forcing to stick to 1mb proposal.. so 2mb seems by the majority of people to be a safe balance..
(if you ignore the motives of the band camps, and just concentrate on the code and utility it offers)

when 2mb rule finally becomes consensus, blocks wont be 1.999mb right from inception.. instead they will be EG: 1.005mb and have the 0.995 space as a buffer to grow slowly..
just like the may 2013 saga.. blocks were not suddenly 0.99mb.. causing 3 years of 52gb chain growth(156gb).. it was slow and steady growth

and over weeks, months the miners will add a few extra transactions per block, incrementally when they can handle the processing time without causing them to lose out chances to be first to solve a block..

and when block rewards do shrink, again not over night but over a couple decades.. technology (storage space and badwidth) will be soo much better also.

i agree if blocks were 200mb TODAY, only data centers would cope. but we are not talking about today.. but instead over 20 years, which we may have 200x increase of population (from 3million to the utopian dream of 600million) we would too also have not 5000 nodes distributed but 1,000,000.(based on a small percentage of dedicated bitcoiners wanting to be full nodes)

and the cost of each of these fullnodes equipment would be $200 for a 200tb hard drive separately a 500mb internet connection will be the norm..
after all. 20 years ago ADSL was not really a thing and the average computer hard drive was $100 for 3gb storage..
alot has changed in the last 20 years, and alot will change in the next 20 years..

so will all you small blockers stop the rhetoric that we shouldnt grow at all.. or that there should only be one solution that nly blockstream should have rights to implement. there should be many solutions and there should be growth in many ways..

im getting sick of the mantra that is meandering off the topic of a simple 2mb increase. to shout out propoganda stuff about data centers and banks and killing off bitcoin in favour of "liquid".

if everyone just concentrated on just the 2mb increase, of clean code that has no other features that can be abused or used to kill off bitcoin.. then things could move forward.

so the plan should be the user community sets the 2mb limit as a buffer, while miners still only make blocks below1mb.. just like the 1mb was a buffer while miners were only making 500k blocks in 2013.. then later.. miners start to make 1.005b when they are happy their blocks wont be delayed or orphaned.. slowly increasing when the lag of a few seconds is comfortable to cope with

sure franky1 but what about this, when block size is bumped, what about the spam aka "stress test"?

Blocks filled with 8MB one guy sending coin back to himself could really hurt Bitcoin because the blockchain would grow much faster,
it will take a long to synchronize or catch up and people archives will be filled with useless dust.

I think we should be extremely careful about this and it is not sin to keep system same as before because it worked for 7 years?

I actually don't care about the block size I'm just here for the drama and fun with these paid posters. I hope they have a happy time
with us and wish them luck maybe when they laid out they get a new banker to post for.

2MB blocksize is the answer for now, it will be good for 2 years top, and then what? Will they agree to increase blocksize progressively or by constant number?
Seeing how Chinese miners not long time ago were against even 2MB upgrade I am not convinced.

Satoshi never intended for the blocksize to be a consensus rule. This should have been fixed years ago as a routine maintenance patch. We need to keep the code as simple as possible, the changes as conservative as possible. I have already made the arguments over and over.

The reason core doesn't move to 2MB now is because it would be detrimental to blocksteam. Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

Satoshi left - and he also left a number of flaws and issues with Bitcoin that he didn't have any answers for - so please stop your appeals to authority with him already.


That is not the reason at all - as has been explained the "simple fix" of increasing block sizes will actually end up centralising the mining more than anything else as the time require to just verify all of the sigs will easily take more than 10 minutes unless you have extraordinary hardware.

so again:
as for the hostile takeover..
lets imagine no one downloaded classic or XT.. and kicked R3 to the curb..
end of story, greedy bankers lose
and then luke_jr made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.
lets YOU made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.
lets adam back made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.
lets jeff garzig made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.

would that too be a hostile take over? or just moving forward and allowing decentralized implementations

There is a very good reason that the people you listed (apart from the last one) don't do that.

That is because they know it is really of no benefit to the future of Bitcoin just to increase the block size.

You've been hired? Wink wink