Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 15, 2015, 10:42:15 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on August 15, 2015, 05:38:04 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 15, 2015, 08:52:24 AM

The "populism of the 1MBers" is not your concern.

Your concern is the multi-year duration and multi-billion-dollar magnitude of Bitcoin's current economic majority.

Are you going to be the first brave fellow to defect from that imposing majority by accepting Gavin-tainted XTcoins? No? Then you are just a poser.

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks. To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization. They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?

Before you answer, please take into account that nodes by default prioritize tx moving older coins, and the Royalty of La Serenissima possesses, in great quantities, very old coins.

What will you do when the limit isn't raised within the next 12 months? Continue to cry wolf? Self harm? Or admit being wrong? Wink

You know iCE, I also am concerned by the idea of a hostile fork, but reading your propaganda it just dawned on me that the only hostilities are coming from people like you. Everyone of any worth agrees we need to increase the block size, it's just there is a hostile minority who feel they are in power who are wanting to pick a fight.

Accommodating bigger blocks over a 12 month period given Bitcoin's exponential growth is not a hostile act, it's not rushing in a controversial change, it's a practical prudent approach.

You are part of the minority who are making it controversial and calling it hostile. I just don't see why you're opposed to letting Bitcoin grow free of manipulation and control.

I am only describing the battlefield and war gaming possible outcomes. Those purely verbal speculative actions are not "hostilities."

This is what "a hostile minority who feel they are in power who are wanting to pick a fight" actually looks like:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

thanks for the link, I hadn't read it yet. I though for a second that maybe it was aggressive and that maybe it was worth censoring but no, it's very practical and his opening sentence kills the debate and his authority right out the gate. (Not kill in a hostile way)

Anyway please spread the word, we need to orphan those cripplecoiners blocks as soon as possible, that's how the protocol works. If you feel I overlook something here excluding Gmax and Back's ego, please explain how and why you feel this is hostile?