how is he desperate, i saw some interviews on youtube and he actually looks and sounds like a genuine guy who really cares about bitcoin.
How does Hilary/Obama/any other creepy "benevolant dictators" looks like when on Tv? Do you also get the sense that they "genuinly" care about the people?
ya, but all Gavin is trying to do is fix the limit and not let the concept of bitcoin be destroyed. It's not like hes doing it for power, every future decision made for bitcoin doesn't need his approval.
Gavin or not, all i want is >1mb limits.
why? where does this urge comes from? how is bitcoin "broken"?
how do you qualify to express your opinion regarding something that is economically complex and crucially technical?
plz dont tell me the first time you ever heard of this ting is from gavin last year... because its been investigated and monitored since at least 3 years.
ill admit im pretty new to this debate, but doesnt the 7 transactions limit per second worry you?
No it doesn't.
A change to the protocol which reduces the security of the network by killing the fee market does. A change in the protocol that centralizes the mining business because only big players can have low enough latency does. A change in the protocol which kills decentralization of full clients does.
Remember decentralized security of the network and decentralization of transaction verification are the two factors which make the Blockchain (our blockchain) more than just a random *.txt file of transactions some nerds are sending around.
Also remember, we don't need to pay for a coffee with Bitcoin on the Blockchain. The Blockchain is an expensive resource and should be treated as such. It should be dedicated for transactions that need a very high amount of security, otherwise Bitcoin will simply die after the subsidy stops as usage is uneconomical. If Bitcoin could become the global method of choice for preserving and transferring larger block of wealth around the world with a extremely high amount of security and autonomy I will be delighted (not to mention rich as hell).
This is a very correct answer and I agree with you 100%. At the same time I think that leaving the cap at 1MB is a bit too paranoid. Even if we raise it to let's say 8MB, we can't make Bitcoin so much more insecure, can't we? But this is still 8x more transactions per second than with 1MB and this would mean a lot for these huge, expensive transfers around the world.
Of course, raising cap illimitlesly and in this way making Bitcoin insecure is out of question.
bitcoin is about trust, hence being paranoid.
block size does not matter that much in regard to effectively scaling anyway, now doesn't it?
and it is not 1MB forever, let's not deviate in some manichean dystopia, although it was rightfully implemented to prevent *spam* remember?