Quote from: stompix on Today at 11:14:27 AM

I'm not saying to compete with Visa, that would never happen, but at least compete with DOGE!!! , doge for god's sake!!!! Doge!!!!!! Fudge! Grin

Exactly what I would do, raise the block limit to kill doge, eth, Solana, trx and every other major altcoin. Cheesy

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 02:14:53 PM

change by itself is not hard, core do it alot..

Change is "hard", by itself, there is a reason why many major projects today still rely on Fortran libraries, a language that is nearly 70 years old (probably older than 99% of forum members), you can still get a decent high-paying job knowing Fortran, there is also a reason why many of these multi-billion projects still use old un-optimized code that works, change is certainly hard and the outcome could be terrible if one thing goes south, heck, there is a known difficulty bug that doesn't take into account the duration it takes to solve the first block of every epoch, it has been there since the first client Satoshi wrote, and nobody bothered fixing it, because it ends in a hard-fork.

If you ask the average IT manager how they feel when they touch one tiny group policy you will understand that change is indeed hard, so ya, let's not make it seem like it's a matter of dev cores performing a double-click and wala! block size is now 100MB with nothing broken along the way.

With that said, the blocksize change isn't as "difficult" as many would make it sound, at least not the forking part of it, actually, it's probably easier now than before in that regard, probably 95% or so of blocks are found but known pools, so some coordination between core, pools, exchanges and major wallets operators is not impossible, it's pretty doable and could be done slowly, and safely.

But then again, it's too much work that nobody seems to be interested in just yet, and when I say nobody I mean somebody whose words matter (not the bunch of us arguing on this topic Cheesy

), but say Antpool, Foundry, Binance, Coinbase, Trezzor and CMC decided they wanted to increase blocksize, do you think core would oppose them? if they did, do you think they can actually stop them from forking the network and keeping the longest chain and BTC ticker on all major exchanges and wallets? Would Core want to stay obsolete with a client nobody who matters uses it? how long would it take before all other nodes come to realize that they are stuck on an old obsolete blockchain that nobody mines on?

It's true that if code devs took the initiative and started to lobby for bigger blocks -- it would be a lot smoother and easier to happen than if Binance stated that, but again, that won't be easy, how long it took Taproot to activate? proposed around 2018? merged in 2020? activated near the end of 2021? so 3-4 years for a soft fork to take place, took a lot of lobbying and patience, doing a controversial hard fork is gong to be a lot more difficult.

Maybe it's possible the core devs spoke to major pools about a block size increase and pools denied their request? have you tried contacting these major pools and asked if they would be interested in raising the size to 12MB? why is it always core devs to blame?