Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Post
Topic
Board Speculation
Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
by
ahpku
on 05/03/2016, 14:16:31 UTC
Quote from: AlexGR on March 05, 2016, 02:06:50 PM
Quote from: ahpku on March 05, 2016, 02:01:22 PM
Quote from: AlexGR on March 05, 2016, 01:53:32 PM
Quote from: ahpku on March 05, 2016, 01:50:05 PM
Quote from: AlexGR on March 05, 2016, 01:45:13 PM
Quote from: ahpku on March 05, 2016, 01:36:48 PM
I'm not talking to Core devs now, I'm talking to you -- a Core supporter who claims that blocksize shouldn't be increased, because fees market.

I don't run things, so my opinion is irrelevant.

Should have opened with that, limiting me to a single, terse reply:
Then why post?

You asked me *my* opinion and I wrote it.

I asked you to logically reconcile the arguments you've used to support Core, the ones that are mutually exclusive.
That is, if you accept the law of universal noncontradiction, which is the very fundament of classical logic.
I have never asked you for your opinions -- those you've offered unprompted.

There is nothing contradictory. You start with the hypothesis that I don't want blocks increased or that I am a core supporter.

Because you have consistently defended Core & attacked Classic, going as far as to suggest that Classic is an attack on Bitcoin,
"Because the issues here are not technical. They have the facade of technical disagreements but at their root, they are a way to undermine confidence and promote a governance coup."

But I guess you're not a core supporter, pushing for 8c fees & 2MB blocks instead. Surprised you didn't lead with that.
P.S. Considering what you wish to see happen, I suggest you consider Classic. While Classic is not imposing a minimal tx fee, it's offering to raise the blocksize limit to 2MB. 1 out of 2 ain't bad.
Core, OTOH, is neither willing to give you 2MB (not 'til '17, and then maybe), nor the 8c min tx fee Smiley