Well, what should I say about the level of communication on here. Fighting paroles claiming to be the majority, insults, naming... very grown up. Though I guess that level of communication can be found on both sides. Some simply doesn't know how to discuss.
Lauda
Again you try to twist words. The security of the mainchain IS needed of course. What not is needed is 100 times the security that would be need to secure the network. Luckily this will solve over time. But for now mining is so rewarding that the bitcoin network is an environmental nightmare. And surely that should not be supported with higher fees so that the markets at work are disturbed to hold more miners than normal in the mining game.
No, surely the fees that are paid now are NOT the result of a free market. It is the result of an artificial market shortage. Imagine some country would decide that from now on we have enough daily bank transactions because... whatever. Fees would rise but that is an artificial market shortage. Transaction supply was limited.
An the actual fees already are higher in average than some time ago. Why? We had full blocks from spamming and now based on times of the day. People complaining about non confirming transactions usually get told to raise the fees. And yes, they do. I did so too. But they did not do so because the transactions are limited because of some natural reason, no the market was hold down from developing further because the allowed transactions were artificially held down.
Sure... the ominous skills that you gave in, don't own yourself too. Though you believe that it is true because those others, you believe having these skills, say so. Even though they are only coder. And even many coders of that original team though differently. You simply chose a side and "believe" that they are right. Well, this is not a religion.
I was told Classic was just Core with a 2 MB block size limit, but now I see SPV mining too. Was I deceived 
Care to explain what you mean with that? As far as I know SPV mining is done on core chain too. At least miners promised to switch to an chimera approach. Starting to spv mine but while mining start to confirm the transactions in that block. That GREATLY reduces the chance of an accidental fork.
It's quite sad that you're cheering for a team that does not even have comparable manpower nor skills.
You realize that bitcoin core has the past lead developer of bitcoin core on his side? Gavin Andresen. I guess his skills must be doubted because he acted against the first law of the bitcoin core religion "You shalt not have another blockchain besides the core blockchain." He still has the second most commits on core. Even after all that time.
Lauda
I surely don't like to pay for unneeded security that does not bring any advantage at all anymore.
The security of the mainchain is not needed? Great, you will enjoy transacting on the secondary layer then.Again you try to twist words. The security of the mainchain IS needed of course. What not is needed is 100 times the security that would be need to secure the network. Luckily this will solve over time. But for now mining is so rewarding that the bitcoin network is an environmental nightmare. And surely that should not be supported with higher fees so that the markets at work are disturbed to hold more miners than normal in the mining game.
Yes. And why? Because of that artificial limit. It IS artificial. It is not a base setting of bitcoin like some 1mb block fans like to claim.
It isn't. I was talking about raising the 'fee limit', i.e. recommended fee artificially. It should be possible if a person clogs up the network with a lot of transactions in the higher fee range. The fee that we are paying right now is the result of the market/people.No, surely the fees that are paid now are NOT the result of a free market. It is the result of an artificial market shortage. Imagine some country would decide that from now on we have enough daily bank transactions because... whatever. Fees would rise but that is an artificial market shortage. Transaction supply was limited.
An the actual fees already are higher in average than some time ago. Why? We had full blocks from spamming and now based on times of the day. People complaining about non confirming transactions usually get told to raise the fees. And yes, they do. I did so too. But they did not do so because the transactions are limited because of some natural reason, no the market was hold down from developing further because the allowed transactions were artificially held down.
Let's be conservative... well, that sounds like bankers speech. "We limit the amount of transactions that can be done because we want a stable price to establish." Well, no, that is not how it should work. Bitcoin should be a free payment protocol for everyone. And not something for people that decide how much transactions they should allow. That is so wrong on so many levels. And then those guys are wondering why bitcoinfans get in an uproar.
Wrong; it's obvious that you don't have any relevant skills. If you make a single mistake while scaling Bitcoin, you risk severely damaging it. The real question is why are people unaware of this.Sure... the ominous skills that you gave in, don't own yourself too. Though you believe that it is true because those others, you believe having these skills, say so. Even though they are only coder. And even many coders of that original team though differently. You simply chose a side and "believe" that they are right. Well, this is not a religion.
And no, we can't allow anyone to raise his ugly head to oppose our own blockchain. We are in control and all the other guys are the bad ones that try to disturb the peace and control we hold.
Of course you are in control. I was told Classic was just Core with a 2 MB block size limit, but now I see SPV mining too. Was I deceived Care to explain what you mean with that? As far as I know SPV mining is done on core chain too. At least miners promised to switch to an chimera approach. Starting to spv mine but while mining start to confirm the transactions in that block. That GREATLY reduces the chance of an accidental fork.
It's quite sad that you're cheering for a team that does not even have comparable manpower nor skills.
You realize that bitcoin core has the past lead developer of bitcoin core on his side? Gavin Andresen. I guess his skills must be doubted because he acted against the first law of the bitcoin core religion "You shalt not have another blockchain besides the core blockchain." He still has the second most commits on core. Even after all that time.