Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 03:46:36 PM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 03:41:40 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 03:39:30 PM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 03:30:38 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on October 09, 2015, 03:09:30 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 02:49:26 PM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 09:51:28 AM

Quote from: muyuu on October 09, 2015, 09:22:23 AM

Dorian knows what's up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjg

Quote

I thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition.

Note the emphasis against centralisation.

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it lmao, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. lololol whatever bro, still cant fill half of the 1MB average blocksize tho, just sayin..

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

conjectures & feelings.

lel

Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"!

tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks?

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue.

What is to stop them hard forking?

You can't be serious....

Do you know what a hard fork is?

I know you are desperate for me to be wrong, but you should set it aside. Its clouding your ability to grok anything.

Okay you seriously need me to point out why you are so obviously wrong here?

Bitcoin's blockchain = the longest valid chain.

Miners could very well start broadcasting bigger blocks but unless every single node in the network move forward with that decision the only thing they will succeed at is forking themselves out of the network and mining their own worthless chain.

My previous post was about demonstrating that miners don't hold the power you pretend they do because if they did then Bitcoin would be broken. In reality they only enforce the rules decided on by the peers on the network. They certainly can't and will never get to decide to change the protocol on the basis of what's best for them.

You know what you are right, I forgot that nodes have to relay blocks not just transactions.

That could be a problem then!