Quote from: rocks on June 25, 2015, 11:43:48 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 25, 2015, 11:12:58 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 25, 2015, 10:29:29 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 25, 2015, 08:44:23 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 25, 2015, 08:18:55 PM

we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:

Unbelievable! It's almost as if subsidizing spam/noise transactions creates more of them. Huh

Whoop - Whoop - Whoop | emergency! | Whoop - Whoop - Whoop | emergency!

Paging Justusranvier to explain in free-market ~~principles~~ pretzels how iCEBREAKER is muddled in his thinking.

Heh, the Gavinistas are having a very bad ~~day~~ week. Cool

First, Frap.doc was put upon to explain with some semblance of logical consistency how he reaches the same pro-bloat conclusion as gavin@tla.mit.gov, despite operating on quite opposite assumptions w/r/t the financial crisis being over (now and in the med. term future).

Then came yet another face-r3kking, sig-worthy domination tweet from Jon Matonis (as if the previous from Szatoshi Backamoto weren't enough) about the utter futility of shoehorning Bitcon's square settlement peg into VisaPayPal's round payment hole:

And finally(?) Dear Leader Himself debunks hearn@google.mil and Frap.doc's attempts to ram through ill-considered hard forks using fear and mass hysteria:

The way to generate resiliency for Bitcoin is to get to the point that each block generates $10M in fees.

Today each block generates around $4,500 in fees on average.

That is not resilient, that is weak and easy for any state to attack.

This idea that using fee pressure on a low # of transactions is a way to get to high value blocks from fees is absurd. The way to get to high value blocks is tons of transactions paying minimum fees.

Yep. Even my blind patients can see this.