Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 15, 2017, 02:34:12 AM

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on May 14, 2017, 02:34:06 PM

Quote from: Xester on May 14, 2017, 11:41:12 AM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on May 13, 2017, 12:44:02 PM

Quote from: Lauda on May 12, 2017, 06:08:51 PM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on May 12, 2017, 06:00:28 PM

All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.

That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. Roll Eyes

I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining u ntil Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.

It is not about the hate but its all about the monopoly. Both parties wanted to monopolize the bitcoin mining industry and if they will succeed they will have total control over the production of bitcoin. Thus it will mean huge profit from them and it could mean higher fees for us. What we need is the current bitcoin without bitcoin unlimited and without segwit. Bitcoin is good as it is.

Original Bitcoin did NOT have a blocksize cap. We clearly need to remove it. It never should have been added.

Just because Satoshi said and did this or said that does not mean his word is law or he is correct all of the time. Did he not put the 1mb limit? Removing it now would centralize mining and make the blockchain unmmanageably very large.

Quote

Bitcoin had unused block capacity for years for its entire history until just recently when all blocks started being full. This isn't difficult to understand.

You want it to scale, yes many people do. Why not fix the malleability issues first with Segwit and then make it scale through offchain means?

Malleability has never been an issue except to people who imagined it to be one. Just wait for a confirmation or two. Even if it was a problem, can you give a technical explanation why SegWit is required to address malleability double spends???