Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

Increase the block size and if Core takes to long to do it then an alternative implementation of Bitcoin will.

"IF?" "IF?" "IF?"

From where did this wild "IF" suddenly appear?

All summer long, you Gavinistas were screaming that Core has already taken too long, and as a result Bitcoin is (for the greater profit of Blockstream) choking and dying, thus justifying hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov's governance coup.

Now that XT got fukkin' rekt, you want to backpedal to a conditional hedge?

Get your story straight, chump! Cheesy

I think we should increase the blocksize before the network becomes overloaded. However if Core and the community does take to long and the network does become overloaded then I am confident that another implementation will increase the block size instead. Allowing the network to become overloaded would hamper adoption and confidence in Bitcoin that is why I think we should increase the block size before that happens. There is no backpedaling in that, it is completely consistent with what I have been saying before.

There is no such thing as the network being "overloaded". Users paying enough fees will get their transactions processed and others will have to wait. If they decide that the wait is too long they will find another alternative for whatever transaction they wish to process.

Moreover, this network "congestion" has little impact over nodes and miners. Coincidentally they are the one to decide whether or not an alternative protocol is to be implemented.

You start under the premise that Bitcoin adopters are dying to transact over the network. Reality indicates quite the opposite. Again, you are conflating your delusions of Bitcoin adoption and what you would like it to be with what it actually is and how it is currently used.

If the network did become "overloaded" or "congested" as you say. Transactions might take days to be confirmed and other transactions might not be confirmed at all depending on the fee. It would however be difficult to determine how much of a fee you would actually need in order to even get your transaction processed. This would essentially render transactions on the Bitcoin network unreliable, this would not be a good user experience, especially for people that are new to Bitcoin, and this would seriously hamper adoption and public perception.

Did you somehow miss the part where actual Bitcoin transactions are a marginal use case that is quite irrelevant to actual adoption as a speculative asset/store of wealth?

Quote from: brg444 on September 19, 2015, 06:43:33 PM

You start under the premise that Bitcoin adopters are dying to transact over the network. Reality indicates quite the opposite. Again, you are conflating your delusions of Bitcoin adoption and what you would like it to be with what it actually is and how it is currently used.

You think that Bitcoin transactions are irrelevant to the adoption of Bitcoin? It can be both a store of wealth and a currency, the two are not mutually exclusive actually they are synergistic. Increasing the utility of Bitcoin does increase its value and thereby does make it a better store of wealth. I have heard this said often now but it is a false dichotomy, Bitcoin can be many things to many different people.