Quote from: Pecunia non olet on February 28, 2015, 07:22:42 PM

got to say a couple of things:

1) what happens when limit of 1mb is reached is easiely predictable while 20MB hardfork is much less predictable outcome

Hello MP. Please explain.

Quote from: Pecunia non olet on February 28, 2015, 07:22:42 PM

2) no proof of concept has been established so far and maybe it even can't be. On testnet things look often times different than in the wild

I assume that no proof of concept has been established for 20MB. What about 1MB? Demonstrate it.

Quote from: Pecunia non olet on February 28, 2015, 07:22:42 PM

3) being most vocal or toxic doesn't make you right

Agreed!

Quote from: Pecunia non olet on February 28, 2015, 07:22:42 PM

5) i'm not here to waste my time with the usual toxic folks (r2d221 and mr. buffer) so signing out now. Have a good one.

Ran out if ideas for your blog?

Quote from: Pecunia non olet on February 28, 2015, 07:48:13 PM

for simulation/proof of concept just start an altcoin with tiny blocklimit and see how it pans out or alternatively use Bitcoin.

Because an altcoin will tell us what will happen when we reach the 1MB block limit? C'mon...

Quote from: Pecunia non olet on February 28, 2015, 07:48:13 PM

So far Bitcoin and various altcoins with 1mb blocklimit have been working flawless for years, so i don't know what you actually ask for.

Do you eat shit in the morning only or in the morning and at noon too? Because otherwise I can't tell how come was Bitcoin fime with an 1MB limit since we haven't hit that limit yet. For me it is no difference if we have 100MB or 1MB block limit since blocks are only ~500kb in size.

Quote from: Pecunia non olet on February 28, 2015, 08:20:30 PM

I'd predict it to have marketcap below 10k$ within a few months and never reach higher than briefly 200k$ max. I think the bloatcoin is a failure and i further think it won't be possible to launch an altcoin with 20mb blocks that won't be a failure on the mid- to longterm timeframe.

Based on...what exactly? Don't be shy with the details.

Quote from: Pecunia non olet on February 28, 2015, 08:43:14 PM

A hardfork is always a confession: "we haven't gotten it right from the start"
So in my opinion each hardfork lowers the objective quality of a coin.

Ok. That is your opinion and Bitcoin will be fine without you. Don't worry about it. Bitcoin must be able to evolve and adapt to our needs now and in 2140 and in 2540. Creating something which we labeled as "Beta" and assuming it will not change...ever...is simply stupid. I want my Bitcoin to evolve to meet my needs. I don't want a Bitcoin that is limited this way:

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on February 24, 2015, 11:17:31 PM

DISCLAIMER: A RedeemScript larger than 520 bytes is unspendable at this time. Raising this restriction would require a hardfork. Sending funds to a P2SH address which has a redeemScript larger than 520 bytes will result in funds being "lost". Always verify your redeemScript length to prevent a loss of funds and always test new scripts on testnet before deploying to mainnet.

Your Bitcoin is limited and limiting. THAT is a failure. You know it too, but you have your own agenda. I am sure that your investors will make you a surprise in case of a hard-fork. You have no idea!