Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 23, 2015, 01:19:04 PM

Quote from: thezerg on June 23, 2015, 12:51:53 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 23, 2015, 09:04:33 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 23, 2015, 08:49:21 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on June 23, 2015, 08:30:31 AM

Quote from: Erdogan on June 23, 2015, 08:12:35 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 23, 2015, 06:57:29 AM

One of the nice things about having a 'benevolent dictator' is that it will be much easier to make decisions about these things going forward.
...

My god, cheezes christ, what a socialist pile of crap.

These socialists should be forced to spread their wealth. 'Maybe like a dividend to be distributed to all existing addresses'.

Zikes! You guys make some pretty strong arguments and have convinced me of the error of my ways. Let it be known that I hereby drop my support (however brief) for switching Bitcoin to be under a 'benevolent dictator' and under XT.

Thanks for setting me right guys.

You're saying Mike Hearn was performing an altruistic power grab? That's not so terrible is it? Who wouldn't want one person to control the way their monetary system develops, the sort of person you can rely on to ignore everything that anyone else has to say and override it with a unilateral hard fork, all because that person knows better? What's wrong with Mike, with his superior understanding of what I want for myself, making more of my decisions for me? Why not all of them? He's a smart guy, and there's no way he'd make decisions on my behalf that benefit him.

These arguments have devolved into stupidity. We'll (the majority) just fork mike out of power if he does something stupid. And implying a 21m increase because of an unrelated txn supply increase is a 5yo's logical fallacy.

You guys all need someone/some group in charge so badly that you run home to mamma even when the polled majority clearly wants an increase. But dispute mediation is even more fundamental to how bitcoin works than these other items. Its called open source. Run the rule set you want. My home system WILL easily keep up with 8MB and I support BTC user scalability (I want users in the Philippines to pay in coins) so that's what I'm going to run. Who cares if they (ppl in 2nd or 3rd world or economicly stressed) can't run their own personal copy... especially because 10ppl could pool their resources and do so If you want BTC to be a tool for bankers go ahead and stay on 1MB. In that case the only ppl running a full node will be bankers because they are the only ones who can use the network.

speaking of fallacies, what makes you think I'm a 1 MB block man?

To answer your question about who cares when 3rd world people can't get access to 1st world technology: they do. Who is this "who" that you're referring to, when you say "who cares?". What you really mean is: I'm in my little 1st world country group of people, and I don't consider these 3rd world peasants as fully fledged humans. Who cares about them? Everyone got everything solely by merit, ergo I am superior. Let me tell you, you're looking like less of a human to me.

And speaking of consensus polling, the unilateral (i.e. the perfect opposite of a consensus poll) forked client has been rejected in favor of going through the channels to consensus that already exist.

The reality is that the former XT supporters are the people who are in desperate need of a monetary despot; you can't paint unilateral forks any other way than exactly that.

I think you've misinterpreted my posting... I was basically saying that its better for ppl in 2nd and 3rd world nations to be able to use bitcoin peer-to-peer, even if it has to be via SPV wallets (anchored potentially by a single node funded by a group of people -- not by big-evil-bank) than for txn fees to be so high that bitcoin use is limited to large sum transfers.

EDIT: This whole idea that every single user of bitcoin needs the full txn history on every device is just silly. The system is still decentralized if there are 100 SPV users for 1 node. SPV is still peer-to-peer, albeit slightly less so than full nodes: you hold your own BTC, you sign your own txn, you can in real time choose ANY node to submit the txn to. The key feature to decentralization is permissionless participation. Linux, firefox, emacs, Open/Libre Office development is pretty centralized... but as we saw with emacs and Open/Libre Office if there is an issue, people branch off. The same will be true with bitcoin full nodes -- especially because full nodes have very little power oven the network (miners do). But if some node is misbehaving, the people who care will group together and buy a full node and use that one instead.