As the drums of war thunder louder and louder, USGavin's effort to frame objection to the blocksize increase as coming from a tiny minority continues. But what must one do when evidence to the contrary begins to appear on outlets for your propaganda such as reddit's /r/bitcoin? What if this evidence clearly depicted that not only is there a debate to be had, but that this "tiny minority" is in fact anything but small. What would you do as it becomes increasingly apparent that it's going to be a struggle to continue to toe the "tiny minority" line unless action is taken?
Well, you might start by having the vote and comment count on submissions to /r/bitcoin which challenge your narrative altered in such a way to reflect that no debate or discussion had taken place. For example, the Hard Fork Missle Crisis article – which reached the near top of /r/bitcoin by attracting hundreds of comments and hundreds of upvotes of which many were in agreement that increasing the blocksize limit is the wrong move – has been altered in an attempt to show anyone taking a cursory look at the headline that it failed to attract anything more than a couple of upvotes and comments.
That that article attracted far more attention than USGavin is willing to concede and as a result of this, a need to tamper with the vote and comment count took place is irrefutable evidence that USGavin is in fact on the losing side of the debate. Such tampering would only occur if someone had the intention to continue saying – Look! There is no debate to be had! We are all in agreement to increase the blocksize limit!
Sorry USGavin, hundreds of upvotes, comments, discussion and increasing traffic is not coming from a tiny minority but a growing number of people concerned you will continue in your attempt to bring your bull into a china shop you don't even own.
Easy, but unproductive.
All the FT cadaver washing in the world won't make Gavin any less teh Assassinsen. Merely the fact that they actually feel the need to retort to such ludicrous lengths to prop up a guy principally known for providing entertainment services for various conferences – dressing up as pirates and whatnot – is telling enough of the story.
How do you propose to scale the platform? Bueller? bueller? bueller? [sound of crickets] You got nothing.
How do you propose that such a need might arise in the first place? And if it were to arise, why wouldn't a competitive marketplace for transaction fees emerge, a marketplace that would benefit miners and thereby further help to secure the network? It seems to me that this "problem," if there really is one there, would resolve of its own accord in a far more grassroots, and therefore more sustainable, approach than what you're proposing.
It seems to me that the "need to scale" is a need for personal validation, not a requirement of the system itself. The system is valid as it is.
"How do you propose to resolve this problem that doesn't exist but we spent the past two years talking at each other about it as if it actually existed ???????"
"By _continuing_ to ignore you."
"Butthatsracist!!!!"
Herp. Go vote, dumbass.
The problem is described thusly: "…the network can support only approximately 7-transactions-per-second."
7 transactions a second is laughable just like your denial.
Seven transactions per second is laughable? Really? Like laugh out loud shit or what?
Show me a real estate registry that can handle anything within an order of magnitude of that and we'll talk. That's the counterfactual. Not Visa.
For the kabillionth time,
Actually, SWIFT doesn't handle 7 txn/second either. I dunno how laughable it is, poor people don't need wire service.
Your analogues are a real estate registry and SWIFT!? LOL
Not everbody sees the world through the narrow lense of food stamps and reddit upvotes. At the point where you leave McDonalds and try to mingle with the people actually involved in changing the world, you'll have to account for the substantial differences between you and them.
Not everybody sees…