Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 09:34:46 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 09:16:18 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 09:04:30 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 08:55:11 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 06:08:35 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 23, 2015, 05:01:11 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 23, 2015, 04:40:53 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 03:40:57 PM

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious. If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win. The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty. If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions. Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind. We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

[img]http://-snip-[img]

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

That's a possibility but a split fork is more probable IMO simply because it would be easier to achieve.

The final results are pretty much the same nonetheless.

A fork easier to achieve then readily available alternatives Huh

In what world do you live in !? Cheesy

A consensus fork is hard but a split fork would be fairly easy as consensus is already reached on both side and both side would be willing to lose the other side.

You really don't realize what this implies, do you?

This would effectively destroy any trust that exist into your fork and the value of your altcoin would plummet and likely never recover. If you don't have the support of the economic majority your coin is worthless.

In fact I'm all for it and will support you in this endeavor. As hdbuck has repeatedly mentioned I can only hope your little clique of corporate shills fork yourselves away from us so we can't never hear from you again. What a spectacle this will be!