Quote from: Arghhh on March 07, 2015, 11:54:25 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on March 07, 2015, 07:58:40 PM

Quote from: Arghhh on March 03, 2015, 08:34:27 AM

It's almost like these 1MB'er wants Bitcoin to die on purpose. Madness.

You fear we must fix Bitcoin until it breaks in order to save it from certain death? I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Bitcoin is antifragile. It thrives in the face of adversity and scarcity.

The madness here is the megolomania and hubris displayed by the Monopolist Maximalist camp.

Remember that Satoshi instated the 1MB limit as a temporary spam block. It was never meant to be permanent and cripple Bitcoin.

You are right in Bitcoin being antifragile though, which is why it's going to evolve past 1MB. See the poll above? We can argue all day, but the writing is on the wall.

And please tell me, who gets to access the blockchain past 3 tx/sec?

The plebeians will be tired of unconfirmed transactions, and quickly discover the wonders of off-chain banking!

There you go again, with the 'zomg something must be done RIGHT NOW think of the children' FUD. Creating an artificial need is Sales 101.

"Cripple Bitcoin?" Roll Eyes

You still lack faith in Bitcoin's antifragility. It cannot be crippled on a temporary basis without growing stronger on a permanent one.

If you don't want to pay a competitive tx fee for Bitcoin's bulletproof Rolls Royce of blockchains, off-chain banking is one option.

Another, better, option which you pretend does not exist is to use a different blockchain. Litecoin is the Toyota of blockchains; Primecoin is the Tata, etc.

To answer your question, only the most important/valuable tx deserve/afford eternal preservation in Bitcoin's most precious footprint.

The writing is on the wall, but you are reading it wrong. It says nowhere near the required 95% of the community supports the GigaBloat fork.