Quote from: HigsonPP on July 09, 2015, 06:27:39 PM

What's the transaction fee for it? I think you guys need to clarify all these things from the very beginning ,so it doesn't pose a problem for us. Also i found last test rather interesting. This one was okayish,

It is not a fee problem. It is getting rejected since pool(not BTC mining pool but pays in BTC) is sending to more then 200 addresses. It worked yesterday but now it doesn't. Well to got confirmed after more then 24 hours... So I don't like this soft antispam(what the f**k is spam hire anyway???) fork that doesn't work as it should and it was not announced so we would know how to make transactions that will not be spam according to it. Changing rules like that can kill bitcoin not 20MB blocks.

Quote from: sturle on July 09, 2015, 06:21:06 PM

Quote from: Lucko on July 09, 2015, 08:16:33 AM

Only if you are miner you need that speed. For normal user you can do that in 5 minutes and you are still more then fine.

If you are a very dedicated user, you may accept that your internet is slow as heck for 50% of the time. Most won't, and will opt for lower security and less privacy with an SPV wallet instead. I don't think spam is important enough that we should accept more centralization or forcing lower security upon a lot of users. As the malicious attacks has demonstrated, there is plenty of room for all the non-spam transactions in 1MB blocks. If your goal is more spam and lower security and privacy, the answer is larger blocks. If your goal is to make transactions confirm faster, the answer is better spam filtering.

There is another option, if you insist on a hard fork: Smaller transactions. Using different crypto algorithms, the size of each transaction can be reduced to about 1/4th of the current size. This unfortunately come with the cost of higher CPU consumption. Nothing is free. With each transaction taking 1/4th of the current size, we can do with a block size of 250k for years to come, allowing even users with metered internet and mobile connections to run full nodes. Assuming spam filtering, of course. If you want to abolish spam filtering entirely, then no block size would be large enough, and no personal user will even dream of doing a full blockchain download.

I don't use core for transactions for a long time. Not safe. If there would have connect a Android device with Trezor option I might use my XT node for transactions but since this will probably not happen MyCelium works just fine. It even has integrated BTC to SEPA in it... So why use a node for transactions? You can't use it of a phone. Big problem if you get hacked. Personally I think suggest that you should use node for transaction is really a bad idea unless you are security expert. Most people aren't. And core is far from secure wallet.

And now what is spam? How do you know that? Who give you the right to decide? If you don't like it don't run a node. Are you a bank? Are we going the way banks are going? And how will users know so they will not be blocked. What happens if someone didn't know that rules have changed? Isn't that why we don't like banks?

And as soon as I see on option that will work without increasing block size limit that will happen in less then 1 year I'm OK with 1MB. But there isn't any... even one that are mentioned need bigger blocks in long run so making them bigger now changes noting. Also I see some conflicts of interests in persons that are against it. Like chef scientist of altcoin or working on some alternative payment system that uses BTC. If your payment needs you not to understand something I assure you you will not understand it. And making BTC settlement layer will make altcoins(p2p users) and that system(BTC users) more attractive. Until now I didn't see an argument that is not BS speculation...

We will need bigger blocks and all alternative payment system, sidechains, altcoins and who knows what more but for now we have size... If you have alternative payment system in place when we need to make blocks even bigger grate but there isn't one now.

And just to be sure. There will not be 2 Bitcoins after hard fork. If it happens 25% will change to bigger blocks or will be killed by bitcoins tht are useless or even 51% attacks for sure... So saying there will be 2 and big problems is BS. When first big blocks is mined small chain will die in hours or days... Unless there are more exchanges and wallets on it. Than it might take longer or it might even manage to beat big one since miners might change back to it. But there will never be 2 Bitcoins for a long period time... Just look what happened with LTC and FTC.

Quote from: DannyHamilton on July 09, 2015, 08:11:42 PM

Quote from: Lucko on July 09, 2015, 06:45:31 PM

Not sure about other states but it is like water or electricity. You will get cable or ADSL or WiFi(EDIT: it might even be fibre) provided by state and you need to only get ISP.

In many of those rural areas of the U.S., people have their own personal well for water out of the ground, so water may be a bad example, unless you are saying that their is some way to dig into the ground and tap directly into some high speed internet reservoir?

Talking about EU. If you have a building permit you will get electricity, water and a chance to use broadband connection. I should use word country not state.