Quote from: kazuki49 on February 09, 2015, 04:07:17 AM

Quote from: RoadStress on February 09, 2015, 03:41:43 AM

Yes get rid of me and leave the Icetard clown to support scamming companies!

Not saying to anyone get rid of anyone here but this is very disingenuous, LaudaM is another blind pro-forker (since when the BTC community was this divided?) and had a big flashy GAW/Paycoin ad on the signature for months, the same argument could be used, and he had the balls to say he didn't knew what GAW was and was only whoring his signature, not really my problem but his posts are of shallow quality, in comparison with the logical arguments from iCEBREAKER people like you are fighting, I have to denounce these discrepancies.

Well I'm not aware of LaudaM history, but from the start you are comparing apples to oranges. Having a signature that advertises for something can't be compared to the direct endorsement and with all the lies and all the misinformation that Icetard put up in the HashFail thread. Even now after the company is bankrupt he is still defending HashFail stating that it was just a failed business when it was a plain scam all along.

Quote from: traincarswreck on February 09, 2015, 04:08:04 AM

Quote from: RoadStress on February 09, 2015, 04:05:36 AM

"Money is only the first application" It's not the ONLY application! Why do you keep insisting on the money aspect?

We are trying to have an intelligent conversation with well read and mature persons. Why do you continually drown us out? And why do the mods put up with your name calling and incessant voice that lacks-REASON?

So because you only see in Bitcoin just only one application that is money we should all agree to that?

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 09, 2015, 04:18:56 AM

"TOR" is shorthand for low-bandwidth connections, whether privacy-enhanced darkweb internets-within-the-internet or plain old slow DSL.

You need to keep up. This has already addressed here:

I view this as paranoia. While you and tvbcof are using lots of services outside of TOR you don't want to use Bitcoin outside of TOR. Why don't you try to impose TOR on all websites if we are at this subject? Only limit only to Bitcoin? Why should the network comply with your view and fears? Why don't you let the network decide this as it should happen?

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 09, 2015, 04:21:51 AM

I know this is hard for you, so try reading this quote s l o w l y .

Now you are just like one of those Protestants that is taking the bible ad-literam. Here is my view on what satoshi said: Sidechains! Part of the proof-of-work stuff will move to sidechains and kaboom! You will not have every proof-of-work quorum piled into one system.

Quote from: sergio on February 09, 2015, 04:30:13 AM

The blockchain database could grow to 1000GB instead of 200GB per year.

A 1TB HDD is ~$50. That's your problem? Remember it's your problem, not the networks problem. The true network problem is a bottleneck which will be caused by the 1MB limit.

Quote

If the bitcoin decentralized database grows too big it will be more centralized, centralization is a very bad thing.

Pruning!

Quote

The blockchain security will be weaker, as the block reward for miners halves, and miners have to depend more and more on mining fees instead of the block reward, by having a 20MB block there will be little motivation to pay any transactions fees at all, causing lots of miners to quit weakening security.

Are you a miner to know how the miners will act and what are their needs? I am a miner and I find a block reward halfing to be more than enough reward for me to keep mining. At 12.5BTC/block I don't care about the fees.

Quote

In the very futuristic event that a block were to be generating more than 25 BTC in rewards based on fees, this would imply a large fee to get the transaction though in the next block in such an event it could be considered to increase the block size only and only if the current block size would become a problem.

How did you got to the more than 25 BTC reward in fees for a 1MB limit? Would you show me the math behind it or it's just a number pulled out of your ass?

Quote

As of today for each block reward, 25 BTC are the block reward, and only on average 0.1 BTC are from fees, the amount of 0.1 BTC would go down to near 0, and that will be a problem for the security of the blockchain once the block reward is something like 3 BTC.

So going from 0.1BTC to 0BTC is the real problem for the security? What are you smoking?

Do you know when the block reward will be like 3 BTC? Serious question.

Quote

The 20MB block might be needed in the far future but not now.

How much is far? 5 years? 10 years?

Quote

Also a fork risks the price of bitcoin going down since some may stay on the other side of the fork.

The exchange rate doesn't matter. It's the technology that does!

Quote

It is better to concentrate on bitcoin gaining adoption instead of solving a problem that today does not exist.

You like using fancy words like "mass adoption" I see.

If we get mass adoption with an 1MB block limit then we will have this problem:

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on February 05, 2015, 01:31:00 AM

When someone advocates a permanent cap of 1MB what they are saying is I think Bitcoin will be great if it is never used by more than a couple million users making less than one transaction per month.

Do you really think that "mass adoption" will help with anything if the network will be limited to a couple million users making less than one transaction per month?