Quote from: homo homini lupus on February 05, 2015, 01:07:47 PM

Quote from: kingcolex on February 05, 2015, 12:59:46 PM

Quote from: homo homini lupus on February 05, 2015, 11:58:11 AM

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 05, 2015, 11:53:43 AM

Quote from: CoinCidental on February 05, 2015, 11:48:46 AM

Quote from: zimmah on February 05, 2015, 11:27:35 AM

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)

Quote from: grau on February 05, 2015, 08:26:03 AM

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

Usually people buy a new pc or external storage grows, but with cloud storage a lot more content is going to cloud while freeing up the local drives.
Now lets talk, lets say if we don't raise it and in 5 years the blocks WOULD have been at 20mb but we decided to keep it at it's current 1MB, a transaction would take 20 times as long to confirm as it would it have to wait 20 blocks to actually get in and probably be skipped by higher transactions wanting to go quicker. So at minimum a Bitcoin transaction would take around 3 hours to get at least one confirmation.

Do you think that is a good plan?