Quote from: danielpbarron on February 18, 2015, 08:39:57 PM

Quote from: onemorebtc on February 18, 2015, 07:40:04 PM

Quote from: davout on February 18, 2015, 06:57:20 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on February 18, 2015, 06:49:47 PM

I'll assume for the sake of discussion that it is necessary (or ultimately will be).

"I'll assume, for the purpose of discussing X, that X is already granted".

Seriously. What kind of braindamaged logic is this?

i still would like to hear when you think such a change is necessary.
you dont seem to be against any blocksize change as long as it is not needed: how do you define needed in this case?

I define "needed" as when MP says so.

Along those lines, I am against anything proposed by Gavin; even a cure for cancer.

Quote from: #bitcoin-assets

danielpbarron: SetBestChain: 1 of last 100 blocks above version 2 << anyone else seeing this in their .bitcoin/debug.log ? does it have to do with 0.10 coming out?
punkman: blocks version 3 now
danielpbarron: well.. 1 in 100 at least
punkman: oh and they are already talking about version 4
danielpbarron: bu-but.. the forum poll said it had 60% support!? how can this 1% be?
asciilifeform: axe-time, sword-time, coming closer.
punkman: well v3 brings strict signature format, not such a bad thing
asciilifeform: punkman: not bad thing if -we- do it
asciilifeform: if phoundation does it - cure for cancer is bad thing.
asciilifeform: ipso facto.

sheep

what if mp someday decides that he want to short btc? think for yourself!