Quote from: albert11 on July 01, 2016, 12:05:36 AM

If 2MB could break bitcoin, the biggest miners would have never supported it. Basic common sense. Don't lie when you run out of argument please

Bullshit. The miners are apparently as dumb as bricks. 2 MB is able to break Bitcoin, that's why Gavin added more artificial limitations to his BIP (which is != solution, it's a silly workaround).

Quote from: PorkUsher on July 01, 2016, 12:05:44 AM

In that case, your opinion is not really your opinion, you're just parroting shit that others said, without attributing or having the capacity to verify its veracity?

Nope. You just don't know who I am.

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 11:29:53 PM

What you said about being "too dumb to comprehend something properly" tho? Should probably redirect it at the whole fucking Bitcoin community.
Won't be wrong, either.

That works too I guess.

Quote from: Cuidler on July 01, 2016, 12:20:36 AM

2 years old hardware is very cheap one to my standard, thats why I put this example, but if your unable to upgrade once in a while then you should not expect your today computer is going to be able catch up with Bitcoin blockchain in the future, thats pretty reasonable - you should not expect to play future games on your today computer eighter. You will be able to inport private keys to any SVP client anyway if you cannot afford to upgrade your home computer anymore, and continue to play only older and older games as time goes if your gamer.

I don't think it's reasonable at all. Having to constantly upgrade (every 2 year) in order to no fall behind makes no sense to me. Why would someone bother with this unless they explicitly have incentives to do it?

Quote from: Cuidler on July 01, 2016, 12:20:36 AM

You know Gavin used limitations to resolve the O(n^2) validation time problem. Namely limiting maximum signature operations to 1.2 GB per block. As a benefit it would not be possible to O(n^2) attack even current 1 MB blocksize anymore with up to 10 minutes CPU validation in some cases - even segwit dont solve this possible O(n^2) attack on 1 MB blocksize. So the breaking of Bitcoin due to O(n^2) is not censorship, but FUD because your avare of this Gavin solution to my knowledge.

"Resolve"? Cheesy

Don't make me laugh. What Gavin did was the worst approach possible to the validation problem. No, he did not solve anything, he added a ridiculous workaround that prevents certain types of transactions (limited by size). Segwit:

Quote

Segwit's design addressed the issue in two ways: One is that the extra capacity in segwit is for witness data, which is not hashed by the signature hasher. Because of this even with no fix, the worst case possible is much less significant than a plain 2MB block.

Quote from: jbreher on July 01, 2016, 02:34:38 AM

Quote from: Lauda on June 30, 2016, 09:42:23 PM

Fine, Core has surgeons and Classic has garbage collectors. I get it.

Interestingly, garbage collection is one of the more intricate problems in many computing systems. XD

I highly doubt that more than 1% of users know what we may be talking about (e.g. a language). Roll Eyes

Quote from: Quickseller on July 01, 2016, 05:39:08 AM

I think your bias is fairly clear by your below statement.

Quote from: Lauda on June 30, 2016, 09:42:23 PM

Fine, Core has surgeons and Classic has garbage collectors. I get it.

Yeah definitely biased because I don't have the same opinion than some of you. Give me a break and go scam someone else.

Update::

Quote from: jbreher on July 01, 2016, 07:08:03 AM

It is only cuter that you think the language (presumably the runtime environment? let's explore what you mean here) is the only context in which garbage collection is relevant to the entire 'Bitcoin stack'.

It was just an example ("a language" which uses garbage collection) and as thus "is the only context" is false. Discussing this would be off-topic to this thread, would it not?