Quote from: medialab101 on January 14, 2016, 11:53:18 PM

Quote from: pleaseexplainagain on January 14, 2016, 11:38:59 PM

Quote from: r0ach on January 14, 2016, 11:05:22 PM

Quote from: tomothy on January 14, 2016, 09:42:51 PM

Mike Hearn's exit mic drop

I find it tough to dispute his arguments. It's getting close to fork or die time...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.m7ipd85nk

It's easy as shit to dispute his arguments. He's basically claiming that if the blocks ever fill up, then Bitcoin has failed. Since Bitcoin can't scale to world reserve currency without really fucking big blocks (133MB with lightning network and way higher without it), it's pretty much guaranteed to have full blocks and a fee market no matter what you do. While I do think Bitcoin needs at least 8MB blocks to remove most of the glass ceiling on price, his logic is not sound at all about it succeeding or failing based on blocks being full or not.

That post might impress Bitcoin noobs into thinking there's some type of crisis, but blocks becoming full was always destined to happen from day 1. The real issue is that Lightning Network does not exist TODAY, and so blocks should be raised so that Bitcoin has more room to grow until that happens, assuming Lightning Network is even the solution to all our problems in the first place. The way I see it, a collateral bid, deterministic block production system with something like 1001 fixed block producers is the only low hanging fruit I see to solve decentralization and on-chain scaling at the moment:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1317450.0

I am intersted in the bit where he talks about reversing payments. is what he seems to be saying actually true? if the seller of the goods waits for say 4 confirms does that not still protect him. if it is going to be common place for reversals (double spend) then people will always opt for credit cards and the protection they provide and not move to using bitcoin as much?

RBF (Replace by Fee) only applies to 0 confirmation transactions... as far as I understand it

as soon as the transaction is included into a block the transaction is not reversible except the block or the chain where the block is located in is not the main chain. after 6 blocks it seems be unusual the chain of blocks is not the the main chain except a block chain fork is in progress where two main chains exist side by side.