...
No. He is talking about the 970-980 kB blocks which not rare these days. While the average is around 300kB, that means we are at 1/3 capacity. And I personally think 1/3 is where we should seriously consider our options for scalability. The way people are split on the subject right now it is even more urgent to start getting a consensus.
But on the other hand there is no hurry and no crisis. The extra transactions can just go through altcoins if Bitcoin chooses the 1MB block + higher fees 'solution'.
No. He is talking about the 970-980 kB blocks which not rare these days. While the average is around 300kB, that means we are at 1/3 capacity. And I personally think 1/3 is where we should seriously consider our options for scalability. The way people are split on the subject right now it is even more urgent to start getting a consensus.
But on the other hand there is no hurry and no crisis. The extra transactions can just go through altcoins if Bitcoin chooses the 1MB block + higher fees 'solution'.
They aren't rare, but they are not the norm. Most aren't near full.
F2Pool solved a few that were close recently, above 900K. With a good number of freebies.
https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000175b44859017a5148c48ecba7a67f14012232e9bb6b47a73
https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000f9597aed448ce8429c550a65f896b66760381d0c364901e
and then there is this 7K block in between
https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000014efb22561313ebe3c27780808b5d8939ebc1a850badf9da
There are a lot of blocks with <200K, so we'd get some scalability of more Tx/s with a minimum block size too, but that would not be a good thing to do.
Emmmm, I believe I also said as much. The norm is 300 kB. So all we can get is 3x as much transactions. I see that as a bottleneck.
If this was my production server I'd be looking into getting a new one