What exactly amounts to "too fast adoption"? Would half the connected world's economically active population be a realistic target to aim for during the "constipation" stage to avoid wars et al? Anyone making such sweeping statements would be expected to put out an estimate of the tipping point, if they are to be taken seriously.
bitcoinforks.org has more info on the currently accessible shared resources.
No idea, but I guess when it leads to a concerted effort to kill Bitcoin, then it would be too fast. I don't think that's such a strange line of thinking. In fact, in 2013 during the US Senate hearings I thought that as well. That's why I sold all my BTC just before the hearings, because I wasn't so sure the conclusions would be as positive as they turned out to be. (After the hearings, I bought back everything.)
That's perhaps the reason he didn't come forward with this argument in the first place. He can't estimate a tipping point. I think that's why he presented this only now as "an interesting thought" at a meeting behind closed doors.
For the rest of us mere mortals to validate his musings, we'd need to know where we are at in the present moment and what the maximum theoretically possible adoption is, then we can estimate what the rate of adoption is by observing network metrics thus ascertaining whether adoption is "too fast" (as if that can ever be a bad thing).
Well, you were proved wrong one time, I am sure you'll be proved wrong on the same issue a second time.
I thought that was for an incompatible fork? I mentioned compatible forks...
).
Good luck with estimating the rate of adoption, let alone ascertaining whether adoption is too fast or not. I don't see how this can ever be measure except retroactively. You may find it a strange line of thinking, but in the 1930s the US government outlawed the possession of gold. Something I don't find that much less strange.
I avoided what I saw as a risk at the time. I don't think staying on the safe side proved me wrong in any way. Kind of like saying to someone with an insurance against fire, "your house didn't burn down, you were proven wrong, I'm sure you'll be proven wrong again".
In a convoluted way, yes you are right, but that is just in a convoluted, narrow-minded way.
Please provide core with a patch to augment the (non witness) block size and see the support for classic going down instead of up.
The opposition is fine only if there is an alternative proposal to augment the block size. There is no such alternative from Core, but there is from BU.
Again, a number of people is not against core because of the all other goodies we will have in Bitcoin like new signature schemes and such: they just want a bigger block size and they want a development team that listen to the community.
I've been following the discussion of the past years, and I'm aware of his character. And note, I don't think throttling Bitcoin adoption is a good idea. I think if Bitcoin capacity stays capped, it will be overtaken sooner or later, by an altcoin or by a forked Bitcoin.
Is there some fully open-source exchange software out there? I don't necessarily mean full trading stuff but along the lines of shapeshift.io. If it were as easy as firing up an AWS instance, then people would support it. Perhaps the maintainer could make money in the AWS image marketplace or just take a share of the cut. That would incentivize them to add other currencies while not having the risk of personally running an exchange.
Just as anyone concerned about the effect of the blocksize on decentralization should be able to put some numbers to their claim. It's all the same "grab at any excuse" stuff we've already seen.
It's hard to make sense of the transcripts. No single statement of anybody involved? What's the goal of it? Demonstrating that bitcoin is a closed-circle's currency?
