Quote from: brg444 on August 30, 2015, 11:20:33 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 30, 2015, 10:46:15 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 30, 2015, 10:38:27 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 30, 2015, 10:35:13 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 30, 2015, 10:31:29 PM

Quote from: bambou on August 30, 2015, 10:20:25 PM

I feel this whole blocksize drama is just what it is: drama. It aint gonna happen.
If they fork, the old/original version will come out as the one with the most value (as in longest valid chain, and as opposed to spammed/centralized/etc chain).

Probably there will be some adjustment time considering difficulty and the hashrate being divised, but Bitcoin 'original' can only triumph in the end.
Plus we get to loose all them ph0rking n00bs with their beloved companies, government and frappucinos.. ergo much much value

I am not convinced by your argument. It would be more convincing if you tried to rebuttal the arguments that have already been presented.

The problem is you write too much. Maybe you'd like to present a cogent and concise argumentation of why BIP101 is necessary?

I already have, and you have so far failed to respond to my counter argument of your rebuttal.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12270744#msg12270744

This dillema in Bitcoin can not be simplified, you can not come up with one liners that adequatly explain all of the relavant factors involved with this issue. However I can present you with an extremely simplfied argument since you did request it, If you would like to see this in context I suggest you read the whole article I have written on the subject.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers with high bandwidth connections. Considering that these would be the most likely outcomes with increased adoption. I argue that increasing the blocksize is the most decentralized option considering the alternative.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

How about this: I don't particularly care about the amount of people using it. I'm more focused on the capital it attracts.

Let me stand proud and say I would forsake 1,000,000 users for every billionaire we attract. How do you like that Grin

Let me spin you one-liners for fun :

if we do not increase the block size it will be cheaper for more nodes to access governance of the network

if we increase the block size then it will be more expensive and less people will be privileged with this access

but who cares about the nodes, right Roll Eyes

This is really oversimplifying the issue. Nodes are important, but I do hope that you understand that it needs to be a trade off. Since what would be the point of running a full node if we do not even use the blockchain directly ourselves since we would need to rely on third parties since transacting on the main Bitcoin blockchain would become prohibitively expensive. How many people do you think would run these nodes for the banks, payment processors and like you say a few billionaires? I would argue that the opposite is true, if more people are using Bitcoin directly the more likely it will be that we will have more nodes. Arbitrarily restricting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin directly would therefore not lead to an increase in the amount of nodes. Furthermore in terms of access to governance nodes are not as important in terms of governance compared to the miners, and miners do not even run full nodes, that is why miners would not be effected by this change whatsoever.