BitUsher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1027


View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
March 30, 2016, 03:40:23 AM

You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users doesn't support 2MB blocks. And not only "majority" i would also say "supermajority".

Which is why I support segwit and core's roadmap. So typical for a classic supporter to spread misleading information by insinuating I wasn't in favor of larger blocks.

I would actually say it's a perfect example of a use case. Bitcoins are database-writing tokens. That's what they are. Why do you object to them being used to write data to a database?  You object to facts? Hatefacts? You think it's even possible to control what kind of data gets written to the database, when that database was specifically designed to be censorship-resistant?   That's a special kind of hubris. King Canute ain't got nothin' on you.

You are helpless if you cannot see the problem with Fidelity externalizing the costs. Some of these costs are permanent as well. They would be  bypassing all tx fees and having bitcoin users carry the burden of supporting the network through inflation , Demurrage, and higher tx fees where they paid much lower tx fees and incurred none of the other costs.  Fidelity wasn't interested in paying the normal network tx fee, they weren't going to be purchasing any bitcoins, and the only person they may have slightly benefited would be 1-2 large mining pools with a backend deal.


In other words , no new Bitcoin users would come on board through their action, our fees would increase from 7-10 usd to something higher with higher node drop off and more centralization, and they would pay fractions of a penny per tx in fiat directly to miners bypassing the normal fee market.