You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
4

[–] KurtB 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I am not here for cheap votes, I didn't follow the debate until this week. Basically, the block size matters as much as the number of Bitcoins that can possibly exist. -- Which is: Not at all; provided they don't change.

What matters is stability.

Theoretically: If 2 US developers can drum up enough popular support to impose changes of that scale, Bitcoin isn't worth a quarter Fed. Technically: I am not getting into this debate.

If some people want to make a lot small, cheap, transactions they can a) bundle/compress, b) use other chains, c) Append 7MB of XT to a core block, d) be creative ... Bitcoin is not and should not be the only solution.

If some people want to store more information cheaply on a trustless layer, they should help build the safenetwork.io.

However, it's best to listen to the diverse arguments, what you find is that everybody had a different idea of what Bitcoin could be/should be. Some like it to be Western Union, or Visa, others Dropbox, NASDAQ a Casino or a voting back-end for elections.

They forget what the Bitcoin Blockchain is: Free of disorder and uncertainty, the most stable place in the known universe.