Quote from: HR on June 09, 2015, 05:05:15 PM

Quote from: doremi on June 09, 2015, 04:45:08 PM

Quote from: HR on June 09, 2015, 04:31:54 PM

A nice post by GigaBit on another thread - note the reference to DGB (not surprising as he has said so much here on this thread from time to time in the past).

DGB Devs take note: please keep up your great work in setting Best Practice standards - you have a wonderful opportunity here to further move DGB into an even more consolidated leadership role.

Quote from: GigaBit on June 09, 2015, 03:27:48 PM

I voted core...

But I am old school.
I am also a professional miner.
If 20MB blocks go through, I will have to shut my node down entirely and go mine another coin.
In my world, it's the core or nothing at all... whilst I want to remain in Bitcoin, I won't be able to save my earnings and will be auto-sold.
Put more downwards selling pressure on the network... I'm just one miner, though not the only one.
I also never lost a satoshi and been in this business for 3-4 years now.
Then I will transfer the coin leftover to a savings coin... like DigiByte.
If anything, this fork will only hurt Bitcoin but Gavin's skin flute players won't hear anything else.

Not just me who pays for their bandwidth... the entire world is going towards a pay-per-bandwidth model.
At $75 for 20GB, I would need 3 separate internet connections minimum and pay around $400 a month on internet alone for blockchain upkeep.
More wasteful than the power used to power the network...
So instead of making power companies richer, now miners will make ISP's richer too.
Other coins don't force me into the red, why would Bitcoin? #DestructionOfBitcoinViaFIAT

This means I'll go mine another coin and run THEIR core.
No fucking way I can afford $1,000 of internet when it costs me $75 right now.... just to upkeep the core, fuck that.
I'm, also Canadian, so trying to screw over Chinese miners you fuck over everyone who mines.

To me, the devs are nothing but power trippers looking for something to do, to establish their usefulness.
Gavin's just another thoughtless brain dead liberal trying to play follow the leader.
Just like union cock suckers, no one matters to them but themselves and their skin flute orchestra.

GO USE OTHER COINS!!! BITCOIN IS TOO FUCKING SLOW!!!!
Then you will see that the Btcoin block size is fine the way it is and that Bitcoin really sucks as a crypto.

well,i'm not a tech guy but if this statement is true..is that the same problem if DGB hard fork to 10MB blockchain?

Well, it depends . . . on whether the 10MB is an upper limit size, or a static block size, but if the big miners were to drop DGB in some unknown future, a 51% attack is not the potential risk like it is with BTC, and, of course, with a potential appreciation target of well over 460,000%, I suspect profitability prospects for DGB will remain solid over the long term and that any increased costs would be seen as acceptable, should there be any (my understanding is that the 10MB is an upper limit that would be reached gradually, just like the 20MB BTC proposal, with the major difference being that the upper limits just might come very fast with BTC, and that with DGB they might come much more slowly since those huge corporate "farmers" might not be as inclined to repeat the process with DGB . . . multi-algo disincentives to go along with things . . .).

@yoyoamigo,

Great link you posted earlier! Lots of great, reliable, and trustworthy information. Between that and the rest that we've posted here, anyone who wants to take the time to read a bit has got a fantastic start at truly understanding just what's involved. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/394fn1/mike_hearn_in_about_1_week_bitcoin_xt_will/

Link to the podcast linked in that reddit article (well worth the time and reposted here just in case anyone missed it).
https://epicenterbitcoin.com/podcast/082/

I like the way GigaBit puts the shits up em but I think you hit the point here, it's a block size limit or that is what I take it to mean or quite frankly it really would be the straw that broke the camels back. I think transaction fees would probably have to increase considerably with DGB too if it approached this limit so I'm not sure if GigaBit is right or at least I think transaction fees would make up for the additional cost to miners. See this stuff is confusing to nearly everyone, including the oldies. Glad he mentioned DigiByte though!