Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 16, 2015, 05:02:05 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 16, 2015, 03:26:21 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 16, 2015, 03:11:48 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 16, 2015, 03:00:47 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 16, 2015, 02:56:07 AM

I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.

no, the eye doctor says you're a blind fool.

Why do you say that?

Do you believe the controversy will *not* rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus, should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern?

you and the other Cripplecoiner's are blind fools to what is happening right now as a result of the 1MB choke you are inflicting on Bitcoin. you don't have the vision to determine when there is urgency.

My definition of actual congestion is "appropriately competitive fees no longer prioritizing their tx."

I like that one because it is objective.

What is your definition?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you are defining actual congestion as "zero/low fee tx not being sufficiently subsidized by block size."

Please correct my blindness, good doctor.

1. mempool: 57000 0conf-Statoshi, 11000 Tradeblock
2. avg wait time for 0confs=45-60 min Chain.so
3. Mycelium no longer able to prioritize fees
4. continued complaints on Reddit of stuck tx's even with higher fees.
5. continuous stream of full blocks and functioning full nodes indicative that the capacity for bigger blocks exists today.
6. TPS able to spike to >100 when needed indicative of greater bandwidth than initially thought.
7. continued lack of wallet development for fee feedback.
8. full blocks creating new deviant behavior.