Quote from: Andre# on February 15, 2016, 01:20:27 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 15, 2016, 12:59:21 PM

Quote from: Andre# on February 15, 2016, 12:16:34 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 15, 2016, 10:53:35 AM

Quote from: valta4065 on February 15, 2016, 10:49:41 AM

Quote from: wachtwoord on February 15, 2016, 10:18:14 AM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 15, 2016, 10:14:17 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on February 15, 2016, 09:51:44 AM

Quote from: ButtLava on February 15, 2016, 09:46:23 AM

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize. I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

What? Whaaaaaat?
I'm clearly not aware of that! What are you talking about? What's the link between block size and coins cap?

It is called instigating a _precedent_, changing a protocol parameter such as the 21M limit is 1 line of code, just like the blocksize limit.

Anyway, glad to see that such governance coup is impossible and that nobody, not even core can do anything about it.

But that precedent already exists, since the max blocksize was lowered from 33 MB to 1 MB in mid 2010. Hence, instigating a precendent is not a valid argument.

satoshi himself did it, and not without taking into consideration the huge risks such fork event would bring.

luckily the network was small enough and the consensus was overwhelming back then.

besides he did it to prevent spam and limit the transaction overflow attack vector, and as far as i am concerned nothing changed so far.

Except that there's hardly any block space left for the spam attack vector. By doubling the max blocksize now we go back to the situation of 2014 regarding that attack vector.

fact checking: ~0,6MB on 7d average
https://blockchain.info/fr/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

and there'd still be spam in it, because low transaction cost.

And we've seen how efficient the limit was during the spam attack this summer.

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/historical/1d-f-txval_per_tot-01071-blksize_per_avg-01071

Quote

Quote

thinking you can now contentiously change the protocol without causing a network split, hence damaging it along with its value, is utter delusion: money is at stake here.

it is not that core devs or blockstream or whatever do not want to do it, it is more like they know they can't succeed at doing it.

time to move on.

The Core devs are the only stakeholder that resist raising the max blocksize. That last (bold) line is totally twisted.

fact checking: 1319 other version than core (22%)
https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/

they cannot and (smartly enough) would not CONTENTIOUSLY hardfork the network without taking the risk of being on the wrong side of the story, unlike the gavinista chimps who do not care about either harming the network, its security and decentralization.

you are fighting a lost cause really, it is time for your sanity to move on, enjoy the ride with us bitcoiners or gtfo.