Quote from: cypherdoc on August 13, 2015, 03:36:30 PM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on August 13, 2015, 03:02:26 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 13, 2015, 02:05:15 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 13, 2015, 01:32:51 PM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on August 13, 2015, 01:25:27 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 13, 2015, 01:23:21 PM

yeah, but you're in Norway Tongue

Japan

but back to this, you and i can't be outliers as much as LukeJr and gmax want everyone to think in terms of bandwidth speed. we can easily handle a significant block size increase, no problem.

furthermore:

http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2015/08/samsung-unveils-2-5-inch-16tb-ssd-the-worlds-largest-hard-drive/

i really see no technical reasons why we can't have bigger blocks. now.

Yeah I think we're past that point in the debate. It's now clear that the concern of those who make the technical claims regarding bandwidth is about ensuring that Bitcoin node-running is an all-inclusive activity. They insist that no one can be left out, or else it's not a "consensus." Well we're being left out right now, aren't we. By their logic we should be able to halt Bitcoin entirely during this debate because they don't have our consensus. There is no internal consistency in the whole "consensus" line of reasoning. It's just a feel-good buzzword except in the very narrow sense that of course the code will only run among those who are currently in consensus. The lack of any mention of market cap or other economic factor during such invocations of consensus should be a red flag.

There are aspects of the debate where intelligent people may disagree, but this part is pure reactionary stalwartism at this point. It doesn't even jive with the fundamental nature of open source software, which makes consensus a fluid concept. At this point I'd say just find a way to put the forks on the market and let's arbitrage it out. I will submit if a fork cannot gain the market cap advantage, and I suspect the small-blockers will likewise if Core loses it. Money talks.

i've flipped the question around to the Cripplecoiner's a few times, as in, what happens if Gavin is the sole dissenter when the need to slip in the spvp for SC's comes around in a year or so? will they gracefully and quietly back off since they won't have consensus? the angry answer i get back always sounds like they'll ram it thru anyways.

another reason Cripplecoiner's want to see 0 hard forks is they have invested or are investing in systems that could be obsoleted very easily with small tweaks to the code. I suspect if someone like Gavin who isent invested in there company can come in and make a change without there permission its very threatening to there future which may even depend on bugs in the code that cant be fixed for legacy reasons.