Quote from: BillyBones on July 12, 2015, 01:31:47 PM

Quote from: notbatman on July 11, 2015, 05:10:22 PM

I'm seeing a lot of FUD here as the price goes up. Keep squirming you greasy corrupt bastards, we're moving forward!

Where is the article that you find their are lot using FUD against Bitcoin, is it your just presumption or you have any facts to explain, come on man, just by discussing about Bitcoin transactions failure and delay we cannot call it as FUD.

just pay a visit to speculation section and check out the topics there for the last month, you'll see what he is talking about.

Quote from: DooMAD on July 12, 2015, 11:57:24 AM

Quote from: Herbert2020 on July 12, 2015, 10:42:46 AM

there has always been FUD and always will be, we should learn to decide on our own and based on our own knowledge and understanding of the market. not what some random person on the internet claims.
the funny thing is that trolls will spread their FUD no matter if price is going up or down, they just swim against the tide.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on July 11, 2015, 07:03:51 PM

1. There is some consensus to raise the blocksize limit. Something like "2 weeks after 75% of the hashing power signs a message"
to accept X MB blocks, Bitcoin core will update to do that. I'm not sure where we are in the process. But if you look at
a lot of the recent blocks, many are close to the 1MB, but not over, so it clearly hasn't happened yet.

2. There has been transaction stress tests but they haven't slowed down Bitcoin that much, except to push us against
the 1MB limit which are close to anyway. The current spam rules are ok.

do you think the stress test (attacks) and the block size related?
i mean are they trying to force the increase?

Much like the price, this is something people can only speculate about. Everyone has their own motives and I doubt we'll ever be able to know for sure what the real reason is for the stress tests. Perhaps it is purely scientific, to see how the network reacts, or perhaps there's some other agenda at play and it's to prove a point. There's no denying that the consequences of the test have got more people talking about the issue, but how much of that discussion is actually constructive is another matter, heh. If anything, it only seems to be reinforcing and entrenching people's previously held stances. Those that support 1MB say that the transactions with the highest fees are still making it through, which proves the system works. Those that support a larger blocksize say this proves 1MB isn't sustainable and will lead to a two-tier service and Bitcoin becoming a niche for a small minority, rather than an open system that's available to everyone. It won't be sustainable because the network will need to generate more in fees as the block reward diminishes over time and limiting the blocksize also limits the quantity of fees that can be collected. Everyone agrees it has to scale, but few can agree on how yet.

thanks for explaining
i personally believe that these actions are way pass testing purposes and they are more of an attack, as you pointed out it is not still clear what the purpose behind it all is .