Quote from: Mike Hearn on March 07, 2013, 12:16:31 PM

So, to be clear, "the devs" is not a single unified hive mind

I actually want to see the block size limit removed, Bitcoin to scale up, and after that sort of thing is done SatoshiDice type sites won't be as much of an issue anymore. I think Gavin feels the same way, as does sipa. Not sure how Matt feels.

retep (Peter Todd) doesn't feel that way, however, though he's written some great posts and useful patches, he hasn't been working on Bitcoin as long as Gavin or I have.

Luke-Jr has the most extreme view of all of us, he sees SD as being abusive and filters out their transactions from his pool.

I included the option of filtering SD transactions out in my initial post because that's a short-term hack that buys additional time, if for some reason expanding the soft limit is not deemed acceptable or is insufficient. I don't think that'll be the case though.

That's good to know some Dev's agree that the blocksize is an issue.
I see the potential of Bitcoin being a global currency, and its this hedge that gives it value even today. If most people knew that Bitcoin can only currently scale to perhaps double or triple its current volume without problems then i'd wager Bitcoin would not be going up in value, people really think Bitcoin can replace the banks, VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, etc... In reality Bitcoin can not scale to this level.

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on March 07, 2013, 12:27:17 PM

A few years (or maybe even months) from now, we will look back at blocking SD like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. SD may be shady and abusive, but WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE BABY! Personal feelings and vendettas about inappropriate uses of the blockchain are going to look really silly when serious volume and attacks are unleashed at a dizzying pace in this exponential growth environment.

I totally agree, all this fuss over SD? Do they have any idea what will happen if this takes off? And if they want to keep 1MB then I can not fathom Bitcoin becoming the cryto-currency of choice. If we can't solve this then another will. The 1MB limitation is massive.

Quote from: matakaonew on March 07, 2013, 12:42:20 PM

I really think it is better to rise the transaction size, the idea to filter someone like satoshiDice goes directly against all our freedom philosophy. everyone should be able to use the network like if they where anonymous. Whe just can't use information about satoshi to arbitrary censor it. That's just wrong.

thx for reading! i'm new here because i love the principles of bitcoin.

Exactly, so apparently now certain pools are refusing SD. I never knew this and I think its disgraceful, why are Bitcoin's worth $40+ and in the future $hundreds+? Because people think this is the network that will change the world, a 10 minute 1MB block won't change the world though. PayPal/banks/MasterCard will laugh us into $0 Bitcoin territory. (I think my local bank processes more transactions per second than Bitcoin can handle maxing out the 1MB, and this is a small outback branch in Australia)

Quote from: dirksizzlebod on March 07, 2013, 12:49:10 PM

Quote from: disclaimer201 on March 07, 2013, 02:59:12 AM

I lost a lot of money today because of this shit. And I don't care for satoshi dice. Let them move to litecoin or ban them from spamming the network and my harddrives.

If bitcoin miners can't handle one high frequency gambling game, bitcoin is totally fucked.

Your right, Bitcoin is fucked if we can't sort this out, and filtering SD is the most stupid solution. With so many different blocksize solutions being posted I don't understand the willingness to ignore them. Who cares if we create a hard fork? We will have Bitcoin in both and the network that can scale correctly will win.(hopefully)