Quote from: brg444 on August 20, 2015, 03:53:40 PM

Quote from: Norway on August 20, 2015, 03:44:02 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 20, 2015, 03:36:46 PM

Quote from: Norway on August 20, 2015, 03:30:38 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 20, 2015, 03:26:11 PM

Quote from: Norway on August 20, 2015, 03:15:56 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 20, 2015, 02:46:12 PM

Quote from: Norway on August 20, 2015, 02:23:02 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on August 20, 2015, 02:13:22 PM

Quote from: Norway on August 20, 2015, 01:36:51 PM

Bitcoin allready has a fee structure to deal with spam, and the wallets are implementing dynamic fees as we speak. A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. If you think 7 tps is enough for the future of bitcoin, why don't you just say so?

An increase of TPS is already being discussed by core-devs, and they are trying to find the optimal way to implement it.

With a very large percentage of BTC txs being dust, they have plenty of time to figure it out.

What we don't have the luxury to do, is to start rogue forks that create friction in the dev community. But then again, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

As for spam, fees and block sizes: Altcoin Monero has a dynamic sized block. Let's say that, dynamically, the size can enlarge significantly. When it was spam-attacked last year (hint: the bloat created by anonymous coins is multiple size that of bitcoin), do you think people were like "oh, it's ok we have big blocks and we are ok"? No. They had to quickly implement high fees to stop the attack as it would bloat it to unusable levels. It was the fees that stopped the attack, not the self-adapting increasing blocksize.

LTC also used a patch, in the past, to prevent some spam techniques that were used against it. BTC might need to integrate it too.

The core devs have discussed this topic for years. Hopefully, XT will push them to action. If not, we will just opt them out.
A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.

We ?

Who is we?

Cause the more I look the more I can't find any significant support for XT from anyone that actually matters in the ecosystem. Just a bunch of reddit trolls, forum posters and general foot soldiers of the "Free Shit Army"

If there is so little significant support for XT, what are you afraid of? Wink

Afraid?

I'm just trying to show you the light Wink

The light is built into the system. If a group of developers fail to deliver, WE replace them Wink

The "we" you're referring to is the crowd. The "we" you represent doesn't have a say in this issue Wink

The chinese mining pools are not happy with status quo and push for 8 mb limit. Will be exiting to see what they choose in january. At that time, I guess Wladimir has been pushed to come up with a core solution. (No, not the "wait for lightning"-solution, he he).

Solution will come in due time. Unlike what Gavinco would like you to believe there is no rush.

If there is consensus right now amongst relevant actors, it's that XT is not that solution.

See you weren't so wrong. The proper "we" will take action and the ones left in the dust will be Mike & Gavin.

Advice: Just think of XT as a security valve. If the core deadlock continues, the miners will opt out Wink