Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 23, 2016, 06:18:53 PM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on January 23, 2016, 04:40:55 PM

Quote from: Visdome on January 22, 2016, 10:20:44 AM

Quote from: Lauda on January 22, 2016, 09:01:58 AM

This guy has no idea what he's talking about if Google translate properly translated that page for me. There are no technical arguments and it is clearly stated on the Core roadmap for scaling why 2 MB blocks are bad right now. He talks under the assumption that Core plans on sticking with 1 MB forever and making the main chain a settlement layer for the banks. He also assumes that the fees will rise to a few hundred dollars. Both points are complete nonsense:
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?

The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.

Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB. But it needs to move to 2MB or higher quickly to accommodate more adoption/usage.

How is 1MB limiting adoption? why do I keep reading about this nonsense? If you pay the fee it works as intended. If you raise blocksize to 2MB right now you are lossing a node cause I cant keep up with the amount of gigabites the block size is going to take on my hardware.

You keep propagating the myth that fees are a panacea for scalability.
A 7tps system will never be a 100tps or a 1000tps system no matter
what you do with the fee structure.

A 7tps system will not be popular so the total value of bitcoin will not increase. It will reduce if we cannot increase it to 14, 100 tps in the future.