Quote from: onemorexmr on March 10, 2015, 01:48:02 PM

(i wont comment on blocksize change anymore - unsure whats best and i'll keep the decision to the people who have to decide it: miners)

Sorry for repeating myself, but you are bringing up previously refuted points:

Quote from: danielpbarron on January 31, 2015, 07:16:10 PM

Quote from: Mircea Popescu http://trilema.com/2015/lets-address-some-of-the-more-common-pseudo-arguments-raised-by-the-very-stupid-people-that-like-the-gavin-scamcoin-proposal/

VII. The minersⁱ decide.

No, they do not. The miners make some minor decisions in Bitcoin, but major decisions such as block forks are not at their disposition alone, and this for excellent reasons you'll readily understand if you stop and think about it.

There are two specific methods to control miners on this matter, which will make the scamcoin Gavin is trying to replace everyone's Bitcoin with only replace some people's Bitcoin. The first and most obvious is that irrespective of what miners mine, each single full node will reject illegal blocks. This is a fact. If all the miners out there suddenly quit Bitcon and go mine Keiser's Aurora scamcoin instead, from the perspective of the Bitcoin network hash rate simply dropped and that's all. There's absolutely no difference between Keiser's scamcoin and Gavin's scam coin as far as the network is concerned : while one's a scammer that I humiliatingly defeated in the past whereas the other a scammer that I humiliatingly defeat in the future, this makes no difference for Bitcoin. As far as anyone will be able to perceive, miners simply left.

The second and perhaps not as obvious has nevertheless been discussed at length on multiple occasions on #bitcoin-assets. Consider this terse explanation from March. 2013.

Quote

mircea_popescu: whoever has enough money to matter is likely to pick one chain for whatever reason
mircea_popescu: since fork means btc can be spent independently on either chain
mircea_popescu: he will sell his btc on one and perhaps buy on the other.
mircea_popescu: as a result prices will rapidly diverge, panicking the mass of users, and the fork is economically resolved.

The situation here is aggravated by the fact that the fork proposed is not simply nondeterministic behaviourⁱⁱ, and so the holdings on the two chains aren't notionally equivalent. Instead, all the holdings on the Bitcoin chain are accepted as valid on both Bitcoin and Gavincoin, but holdings on Gavincoin are rejected by Bitcoin. Consequently, everyone involved with the fork is writing options to everyone in Bitcoin, free of charge. That they have no ready way to finance these should be obvious, and consequently the grim prospects of the Gavin side of the fork should be just as obvious. At least, to people who understand economy to any degree.

Quote from: DooMAD on March 10, 2015, 02:11:57 PM

Or, we could remove the pointless, artificial 1MB bottleneck and everything carries on exactly like it does now. The blockchain doesn't instantly double or treble in size. It doesn't lead to mass-centralisation (or if it does, it will happen much more slowly than it would if we start forcing users off-chain). None of the other idiotic horror stories your side of the debate has raised will come true.

You might try to carry out Mircea-Next-Tuesday's little threat and launch your 1MB-only nodes if you fancy fighting the inevitable, but I'm still pretty sure you're full of hot air on that one since you know it would be financial suicide. When the fork goes ahead, you're going to tag along and play nice because you don't have any other choice.

If the fork were to succeed somehow, I would be done with bitcoin. I'm not going to start supporting UnSavoryGarnish just because it's taken a trendier hippsterish form. And since this is yet another rehashing of previously refuted points:

Quote from: danielpbarron on January 31, 2015, 07:16:10 PM

Quote from: Mircea Popescu http://trilema.com/2015/third-pass-addressing-the-more-common-pseudo-arguments-raised-by-the-very-stupid-people-that-like-the-gavin-scamcoin-proposal/

XIII. Bitcoin has worked fine so far, and is sending the world's elite running for cover - from political to financial to media elites. Clearly this means more of the same won't work in the future, and it must be changed to more closely conform to what these elites like to see, which only coincidentally happens to strictly resemble each and every other previous challenge to their authority, which only coincidentally hapepend to all failed. Because we're idiots, and so should be you! For equality.

Go away.