Quote from: Lion87346 on January 06, 2017, 10:19:07 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on January 06, 2017, 09:43:33 PM

Quote from: Lion87346 on January 06, 2017, 09:29:00 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on January 06, 2017, 08:25:41 PM

Quote from: Lion87346 on January 06, 2017, 08:16:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on January 06, 2017, 08:03:19 PM

Quote from: Lion87346 on January 06, 2017, 06:59:25 PM

...

...

...

...

...

You are coming at this the wrong way.
If you feel that an altcoin will overtake Bitcoin as the leader, you can invest in another coin.
DASH is known for having problems that Bitcoin does not. DASH's instant send is an illusion.
As I have stated prior, there can not be "instantaneous settlement" in a blockchain.
If DASH claims to have it, it is likely a misunderstanding of how that coin functions.

In the meantime, Bitcoin is doing what it was designed to do and will continue to do.
When a change is needed and the community wants it, the change will come.
Because changes are not constant or revolutionary at each new version,
does not mean there is something wrong, that just means we have nothing to prove.

The video you have provided shows someone doublespending in an online casino.
That type of doublespending is not what the blockchain was designed to stop.
That only occurred because the casino did not wait for a single confirm, before crediting the account.

Your understanding of Bitcoin is not correct, but an opinion on what you think it should do.

"DASH is known for having problems that Bitcoin does not. DASH's instant send is an illusion.
As I have stated prior, there can not be "instantaneous settlement" in a blockchain.
If DASH claims to have it, it is likely a misunderstanding of how that coin functions."

Um.. Anal retentive much? I was talking about improving the time that BTC is sent, making it more efficient.

"In the meantime, Bitcoin is doing what it was designed to do and will continue to do.
When a change is needed and the community wants it, the change will come.
Because changes are not constant or revolutionary at each new version,
does not mean there is something wrong, that just means we have nothing to prove."

No. If there are problems people fix them and sometimes people have hurdles, people who get in your way when you're trying to fix them. The only time when there isn't a problem and nothing to fix is when you're dead.

"The video you have provided shows someone doublespending in an online casino.
That type of doublespending is not what the blockchain was designed to stop.
That only occurred because the casino did not wait for a single confirm, before crediting the account.

Your understanding of Bitcoin is not correct, but an opinion on what you think it should do."

Irrelevant, my point was talking about ways to improve confirmation time, not a double spend debate.

Bitcoin is transacted immediately, like a creditcard or debt.
For bitcoins to receive a confirmation, thus creating a final settlement, it must be within a block.
For Bitcoin to have faster confirmation times, there are three possible choices:
1. Shorten the block interval
2. Raise the max blocksize
3. Create second layers designed for faster and more tps.
Those three choices is what the current "blocksize debate" is about.
Each choice creates other problems that can or can not be currently solved.
Some of the opinions about each one, are also in debate and are just opinions.

No one knows anything for sure and an incorrect choice could damage the system and its future.
Sometimes, things only get "fixed" when the people are forced to "fix" them.
Currently, there is no true need nor a forcing enough, to cause a consensus toward a change.

If you want to change confirmation times, which is a reasonable request on its face,
the question then becomes, what are you will to give up for it? If we want faster times,
we will need to lose security and/or it decentralized nature, IMO.

If we can wait and hold out for a few more years or more, we might be able to design a
solution in which we can have high tps and high decentralization with Bitcoin directly.
That is what I want. I do not think we can legitimately do both now, IMO.