Quote from: davewantsmoore on August 24, 2019, 12:27:48 AM

Not BSV's theory. Bitcoin's.

Perhaps people misunderstood what I meant.

I mean:

BSV is bitcoin. Bitcoin is BSV. BSV is the original bitcoin protocol (or as as close as you get, right now - before undoing the remainder of the idiocy that BTC developers changed in the protocol)

BTC was forked away (segwit) from the original bitcoin protocol (which people refer today as BSV) in August 2017.

It was known as BCH for a while... but then BCH also forked away (and took the name with them).

Quote

Bitcoin certainly cant scale-out decentralized

You didn't explain "why this matters".

Hint: It doesn't .... at best a large/majority miner can disrupt the system ... they cannot attack it in any other effective way. But this "power of disruption" applies to any other large player in any (!!!) other type of system. It's the natural state of things.

Quote from: boomboom on August 25, 2019, 12:47:02 AM

@shelby, if we store our bitcoins in a legacy address (starts with a 1) are we OK if your hypothesis is true? Will our bitcoins be safe & usable on the original legacy immutable satoshi chain?

The "original chain" is BSV. BTC diverged from the original chain in August 2017.

Small blocks doesn't change or stop this problem .... all it does is damage the usefulness of the blockchain.

Quote from: andreibi on August 24, 2019, 07:11:25 PM

Why are people still obsessed with this douchebag? Proof of keys or GTFO.

I'll give you a big hint... it is not primarily to do with possessing keys, or "being satoshi" .... and only "newbies" (also idiots) think "proof of keys" is not incredibly naive. Anyone saying it is either stupid, or being disingenuous.

The people who matter are those who say things about bitcoin which are both useful and correct.

Quote from: STT on August 24, 2019, 11:47:32 PM

The opposing dynamic here seems to be the idea of an open market protocol that allows any block size to be decided variably

Yes... that is how the bitcoin protocol originally worked. A cap was added to protect against an attack vector, which is no longer economically viable. It was ALWAYS discussed by satoshi as something which would need to be increased (and ultimately removed) before it actually LIMITED the available blockspace below the current number of tx.

Quote from: THX 1138 on August 24, 2019, 07:08:47 PM

I believe Luke Jr. (a pool operator and Bitcoin dev)

... and one of the biggest idiots which ever lived. Roll Eyes

Quote from: THX 1138 on August 24, 2019, 07:08:47 PM

And then Satoshi conveniently ignored pleas to raise the 1 MB before he conveniently suddenly disappeared when those pleas started to reach a crescendo again.

Not ignored. However, only miners can effect the block size increasing.... by actually mining larger blocks. Any one miner "going it alone" would be forked.