Re: Blockchain, block size and interledger

Hey all,

I was watching this conversation carefully and I'm shocked how rude some
replies are.

I thought this is a community of open minded people able to discuss related
and unrelated topics more from an objective than a subjective stand point.

Sorry to see some sort of of bulling because one member was not
sensitive/informed as much as others on this list.

We should use opportunities like this to educate not to bang our heads.

Best wishes,


*Markus Geiss*
Chief Architect
RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative
mgeiss@mifos.org | Skype: mgeiss.mifos.org | Mobil: +49.152.295.05306 |
http://mifos.org  <http://facebook.com/mifos>
<http://www.twitter.com/mifos>



On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Xavier Vas <xavier@tr80.com> wrote:

> This is not related to interledger in spite of the subject line. Can you
> cut it out please. Thanks
>
> Xav
>
> On 2016-01-27 07:59, Fabio Barone wrote:
>
>> As suggested, I am starting a new thread for this topic.
>> I apologize if I am coming over as verbose and/or cluttering your
>> inboxes.
>>
>> ****
>>
>> What do people here think about the potentially incumbent collapse of
>> bitcoin as a crypto-currency itself and the block-size issue?
>>
>> The question is related to the blockchain itself, not bitcoin.
>> Block size is ultimately a "political" decision of the community, and
>> there appears to be a scism because of that.
>> Not wanting to discuss that in itself (it's probably being discussed
>> elsewhere),
>>
>> but what do you guys think this means for blockchain technology
>> itself?
>>
>> Will we see a proliferation of different blockchains, making ILP even
>> more interesting and important?
>>
>> Could this be a blow to blockchain technology itself (unlikely IMHO),
>> because limitations of this technology are becoming apparent?
>>
>> What developments do you foresee happening in this field, also maybe
>> not underestimating a potential collapse of the global economy this
>> year?
>>
>> On a side note, I like Ethereum's basic tenets but I am worried about
>> a lock-in of some sorts...
>>
>
>
>