Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 29, 2019, 07:37:38 AM

Quote from: hv_ on September 28, 2019, 09:01:30 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 28, 2019, 08:30:05 AM

Quote from: hv_ on September 27, 2019, 09:13:02 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 27, 2019, 08:48:29 AM

Quote from: hv_ on September 27, 2019, 08:41:20 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 27, 2019, 07:46:12 AM

Quote from: hv_ on September 26, 2019, 02:24:41 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 26, 2019, 05:15:38 AM

Quote from: franky1 on September 25, 2019, 11:46:52 AM

bitcoin is a store of value. as it first needs to be a store of value to then be a medium of exchange.
by this i mean if having no value, people wont want to exchange it.

I'm not trolling, OK? But I believe we debated about this before, and you said that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange first to be valuable, and that because of small blocks, Bitcoin cannot be a medium of exchange. Or am I confused?

It must be 'easy' exchangable to get value at all - if u cannot transfer, nobody wants it / can handle it -> useless Wink

Bitcoin should be P2P cash - per definition. so it should be free to transfer

But if no one wants to hold it, no one would accept it as a medium of exchange. "Medium of exchange" is not only for its sake. It also has to be a store of value, for later use as a medium of exchange. Cool

We know, it is chicken & egg.

But Bitcoin is fully digital / electronic

So it MUST be the cheapest and easy medium of exchange - it's purely intuitive and it is even TOP LEVEL ADVERTISED as the NEW e-cash

so what is the issue ? BTC is not Bitcoin and money any more - it cannot be a store of value for its only sake Wink

I would say yes to all of that, if the technical solution was as easy as increasing the block size to increase transaction throughput, BUT without preventing the network from scaling out.

Bitcoin was designed to be digital - it does not need artificial barriers - it can do, what computers can do - so let it do - it is honest by design

You're trolling.

Newbies, in reality there are barriers to scaling. It can't scale on-chain without centralizing the network, and giving up some of its actual value proposition, which is censorship-resistance.

If u are losing on arguments, u go name calling?

Did I call you names? No. Is that your way to end the debate? I said you're trolling.

Quote

Nope, scaling means real scaling, and not little ( by little Joe, little RasPI,...)

In the real world, by real, in this dimension, no one can go around the laws of physics.

Quote

Miners have done this step already, they have invested and installed high tech level network over the past years, in a still enough decentral way, and that is as industrial grade scaling has to be done for global networks,
Nothing new.

It stays decentral enough over time cause competition is maximum open and everyone can build high level efficient mining equipment and join every time, that will challenge any monopoly over long term. Perfect open rotation.

Because they had to specialize, or be left behind mining with inefficient hardware, and mine at a loss.

Quote

Little joe RasPI pies were never ever of relevance, they only run their wallet clients, when miners run the server farms, as Satoshi designed it.

Meh

Non-mining full nodes validate, they are as part of the network as the nodes the miners connect to. Some miners don't run their own full nodes anymore. Plus why would you tell everyone not to? Is that your whole debate for big blocks? "Because the community doesn't have to run their own full nodes"?

There are no "non- mining full nodes". This is some creative non sense that u just repeat.

U try to teach ppl their e banking client can do much. Sure u can validate what ur bank s server calculated for u. As miners do for ur wallet. But u can only shout and run to miners if ur client cannot follow the protocol.

Nice trolling from u though