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.
Whatever you offer, they refuse.
q.e.d.
im just waiting he finally and "validly" formulates his bet, taking into consideration the only relevant parameter the original idea of "the longest blockchain" thing he keeps on invoking and instead of twisting it to fit his bs.
I don't see why miners would extend chains that are
invalid according to their protocol rules. Anyways, my bet is that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year. You said the chain needs to be "valid" too, and then you'll consider taking the bet.
OK, I'll play along, would you care to define what you mean by valid?