Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 16, 2016, 11:06:43 PM

Hearn's Avengers don't want to develop their own coin anymore than the XT and Unlimited hosers did.

They want to hijack Core, repurpose its roadmap to suit Coinbase's business markitecture requirements, and still expect Core's devs to keep working.

Adam Back is wrecking _Classic on twitter. His best point so far is that _Classic is self-defeating, in that if its tyranny of the majority succeeds in taking out Core it necessarily takes Bitcoin's (experiment in) antifragility with it.

Then there is the fact _Classic is saying such stupid things it makes the small block militia's job easy....

Quote

Henry Brade ‏@Technom4ge
@Koopake @adam3us @virtuallylaw @morcosa The update in Classic is extremely simple and safe, not much testing needed.

"Not much testing needed" is an instant comedy classic. Memes in 3, 2, 1....

Quote

Henry Brade ‏@Technom4ge 4h4 hours ago
@adam3us I'm willing to risk it all purely on principle and the faith that there will be developers even if there aren't many now.

Principle and Faith^® will save _Classic from Evil Core! You read it here first!

This new generation of TumorBlocker lowcows is even more unintentionally hilarious than our beloved old herd of XT and Unlimited Gavinistas.

I guess we have to thank Hearn's timely, high-profile martyrdom for agitating the Tooministas into such an incoherent froth. Cheesy

Agreed highly.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 14, 2016, 03:10:31 PM

Quote from: alani123 on March 14, 2016, 02:29:22 PM

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 14, 2016, 02:03:07 PM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on March 14, 2016, 12:29:50 PM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on March 13, 2016, 03:47:27 PM

I guess it makes sense to support Core if you don't understand how Bitcoin works.

I saw the twins in an interview and they are really amazing , one of the elite of bitcoin, but very good people.

They seem to support core and they have intelligently explained why = DECENTRALIZATION.

Unfortunately classic shills cant understand that a 100 petabyte blockchain will not make bitcoin decentralized.

That's so boring.

Nobody outside small blockers mind is talking about a 100 petabyte blockchain.

If we ever need this space that there will be now way around some kind of centralization, be it lightning, sidechains or blocksize. And, to be honest, if we are in this scenario, a big blocksize may be NOT the most centralized vision.

But that doesn't matter. Nobody is talking aboutz 100 petabyte blocks. End of the story.

Like it or not, even when bitcoin's price was at peak actual use of the currency was mostly from underground markets and various unregulated financial activities. Increasing the block size brings a burden to those hosting nodes and doesn't change bitcoin's potential for real world use. Bitcoin as it stands today is bad for purchasing goods, too slow to walk in a bricks and mortar store expecting to use it to securely purchase. something. The changes that would need to be made for those issues to be addressed haven't been thought out yet but increasing the block size doesn't fix any of them. It's likely that a layer using bitcoin as a settlement layer would be more efficient at providing competitive Financial transaction services rather than attempting to fork bitcoin itself. The latter would likely even turn away some of the current users and having the network shrink can only weaken bitcoin.

And this is boooring, too.*

Claiming to know what Bitcoin is used for and what it is not used for. We don't need no government to decide how many people need to use bitcoin. If you love to be a central planner, you might want to look for a job in governmental administration.

*
I. Actually, Bitcoin is used for many more things than underground markets. Some examples are the international buying of goods, when credit cards don't work, capital flight from restricted areas, paying of international freelancers, gambling, investing and many more things.
II. increasing the blocksize might be a burden for a small percentage of nodes but it will not damage the system as a whole.
III. Bitcoin is not bad for purchasing goods online. It works very well for it. It's also not bad for buying in a shop, because there are mechanism to detect if a transaction might be confirmed or not. It works well.
IV. Bitcoin works quiet well for a whole number of usecases.
V. not a hard fork turns users away but the absence of a hardfork when it is necessary.
VI. restricting bitcoins ability as a payment system damages on of the main usecases of bitcoin: as a token that is used to speculate on the worth it will have when used as a widespread mean of payment.

Do you mean that we SHOULD promote the hardfork?

If Bitcoin gets really decentralized they cannot combat criminal activity anyway (unless they push some malicious code) (for example, FBI pushed malicious JS in Tor websites somehow)