Quote from: Hyena on March 20, 2017, 07:08:15 PM

you write a lot of text and you fail to deliver your point.

Only to those who lack the intellect/patience to comprehend/contemplate the point. I've had numerous smart people (very highly respected members of this forum but I won't name them) peer review this and tell me in private messages that @Peter R's thesis is flawed.

Quote from: Hyena on March 20, 2017, 07:08:15 PM

I've seen your kind in the university, you have a lot to learn how communication works on the Internet.

Sorry if math and blockchain game theory and economics can't be reduced to a sound bite. I think you'd prefer Twitter.

Quote from: Hyena on March 20, 2017, 07:08:15 PM

Miners care about the future of Bitcoin

Then they better not create a protocol with unlimited size blocks, because then they will end up fighting a war between themselves for winner-take-all. But you didn't understand my explanation of the game theory. And these BU miners apparently don't either. But actually I think they do understand and they must know that they do want a winner-take-all control. And so they are trying to take what they think they own from us the owners of the actual tokens (but then later it turns into a battle between themselves and that is one humorous irony of it).

Hey I also want a larger block size. It is ridiculous we are still stuck at 1 MB. There needs to be some reasonable balance between fees and block size. But unlimited (unbounded) size is a different thing entirely.

It is Roger Ver who doesn't understand technology and game theory issues as well as he thinks he does, who is messing everything up by going around putting incorrect lies into the minds of n00bs such as yourself.

I realize that Core is also probably doing something sneaky as well. And I realize that they put things in SegWit such as the ability to softfork version changes which can basically given them unlimited power in the future. I understand there is likely evil going on there. But as a holder of BTC tokens, I don't want chaos. I want continuity. And I also don't want people who propose broken ideas, to have the power to create chaos. If you want to challenge Core, you shouldn't be promulgating an incorrect white paper which was not peer reviewed.

Quote from: Hyena on March 20, 2017, 07:08:15 PM

since they have invested a lot in mining equipment they will most likely defend their investment

I empathize. The 1 MB block is holding back Bitcoin and thus harming miners' investment. I am not saying that I agree with the 1MB block. There is this battle between Core and miners for control apparently. If you wanted to upend Core, then you should have more competent people who would have advised you that unbounded block size doesn't have an equilibrium.

Quote from: Hyena on March 20, 2017, 07:08:15 PM

If miners vote for bigger blocks then so be it, that's Nakamoto consensus and it's the Bitcoin I signed up for in 2011. If you don't like it GTFO and start your own shitcoin with a different ruleset.

Fact is that if no one wants to buy tokens from their unbounded size blocks protocol, then they can burn their excess hashrate at a loss until they go bankrupt. That is the reality. Excess hashrate supply doesn't force demand for tokens. It is demand for tokens that determines the supply of hashrate. You've got that backwards.

The polls I've seen and the policy of the exchanges seems to show that your mining cartel buddies are going to lose. But we'll have to see how this plays out.

My popcorn is ready. I don't really have any vested interest in this fight (I had planned to ride BTC to $2000+ until this fight with BTU came on to the scene and forced me to look into this and diversify a bit). I am more of an observer, except that I wanted to set the record straight on whether unlimited size blocks are a solution (they are not).

Yes I am making a shitcoin where "miners" have no power at all to do shit like this. But that is not here nor there relevant right now.