Quote from: Andre# on March 07, 2016, 06:31:48 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 07, 2016, 01:38:36 AM

Quote from: Andre# on March 06, 2016, 11:52:31 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 06, 2016, 09:39:54 PM

Quote from: Andre# on March 06, 2016, 09:09:39 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 06, 2016, 07:32:25 PM

Quote from: Andre# on March 06, 2016, 02:20:25 PM

Quote from: Morecoin Freeman on March 06, 2016, 01:11:26 PM

Bitcoin looking healthy again.

Yes, and blocks are still maxxed out.

The blocks are hardly maxed out ----- unless you are just making up shit in order to attempt to exaggerate some problem that is not even close to what the loud mouth FUDsters are attempting to portray.

Blocks floating around 65% at the moment... ... but they had experienced some peaks approaching 90% in recent days (within the past week)

At the time of writing, these were the latest blocks.

401423: 0 MB
401422: 976.48 MB
401421: 974.79 MB
401420: 974.77 MB
401419: 906.65 MB
401418: 0 MB
401417: 974.64 MB
401416: 912.66 MB
401415: 976.45 MB
401414: 974.72 MB
401413: 965.86 MB
401412: 974.55 MB
401411: 974.74 MB

Looks pretty maxed out to me (with thousands tx waiting in tradeblock's mempool). I guess I must be making it up, then.

BTW, you also could have looked at ChartBuddy.

Quote from: ChartBuddy on March 06, 2016, 12:00:36 PM

Explanation

Quote from: ChartBuddy on March 06, 2016, 01:00:37 PM

Explanation

Quote from: ChartBuddy on March 06, 2016, 02:00:37 PM

Explanation

ChartBuddy knows his shit -- I'm only making it up.

I've cited my sources as blockchain.info charts, and you cited your sources as chartbuddy? If someone could explain why blockchain.info is lacking in credibility, then that may be helpful. I really do not understand the significance of chartbuddy because I put through several transactions during supposed congested periods last week, and my experiences reflected those described in blockchain.info, which was relatively quick confirmations and finalization of transactions (in spite claims of fulblocalypse).

So, yeah, I don't think that these various claims of fullblocks really materialize into real world problems, and yes, I think that the blockchain is suffering from various spam/ddos attacks yet is still functioning pretty fucking well in spite of attempts to make it seem full and in spite of attempts to describe some kind of supposed tragedy in the alleged clogged up nature of the blockchain.

Those list of block sizes, I actually got them from blockchain.info as well. So I don't think that blockchain.info lacks credibility. I don't know about the average block sizes chart, though. The chart says the all time high was 876 B, which doesn't tell the whole story regarding block fullness if empty blocks and soft limited blocks are counted as well.

Of course, the "real world problems" of delayed transactions can be solved for a big part once all people are properly trained to guess the right fee, and wallets are updated to make as good a fee advise as possible. And sooner or later the use cases which require cheap transactions will be dropped. And all will be fine.

I just hope it doesn't come to that. I don't want Bitcoin's growth to stop. It seems we differ in that wish, and that's fine. Time will tell which crypto can deliver the desired volume, and how.

You are suggesting that we differ in a wish regarding whether bitcoin's growth stops or not. I don't think so. With that assertion you seem to be implying some untrue assertion that I am not interested in growth of bitcoin... which is pure bullshit to read that into anything that I am saying.

In essence, I provided you an actual link regarding the source within blockchain.info in which I was getting my information regarding both average block size and also regarding transaction times. You did not provide me any link. I was suggesting that both those chart links that I provided and also my real world experiences had demonstrated to me that there really does not seem to be an urgent problem concerning the blocks being full and the amount of time that it takes for a paid for transaction to go through (with the .0001BTC per kilobyte fee).

Accordingly, if there is some information that I am missing (on blockchain.info), then why can't you provide a link that shows that information regarding blocks being maxed out as you asserted??.. You could also, if you so choose, provide some kind of factual information that would support your assertion that this is some kind of major problem that cannot wait a little bit for the implementation of seg wit and the thereafter further considerations of possible block size limit increases that may follow within a year or so thereafter, if that seems necessary after seg wit.

Most technical people in bitcoin seem to agree that some kind of additional block size increase will still be necessary after the implementation of seg wit.. but there remains some uncertainties still regarding the extent to which an actual schedule of block size limit increases is going to be necessary after the implementation of seg wit. and what the timeline for that increase is going to be (or does it need to be pre-established rather than adaptive based on circumstances).

Perhaps the CEO of blockchain.info can convince you?

https://medium.com/@OneMorePeter/bitcoin-scaling-and-choices-bed96a76e637#.laj905178

Quote

At Blockchain.info, where I am CEO, we have historically seen very few tickets related to transaction times or fees. Now however, we are setting new records for the number of tickets we receive in this category daily indeed, the tickets are growing by a factor of 10 every week. It is now our top support issue by ticket volume.

His analysis on the recent so-called "spam attack" is also worthwhile.

What you provided is not evidence. It is an opinion piece that appears to be based on selective evidence from sources that are less than clear.

Within the Peter Smith article, why not provide evidence on a longer scale that actually shows block fullness, transaction times and fees on a more specific and streamed timeline, instead of taking a clip from a short period now (of 2 weeks) and comparing that short period to some preselected 2015 period and then suggesting that somehow those clips of time are representative without showing the whole thing. that is hardly factual, hardly convincing and hardly a credible way to present supposed facts.

Yes, Blockchain.info has charts, and I provided links to a couple of those charts that show my point.

You are asserting that you are getting your supposed information from blockchain.info facts as well that show conclusions different from mine; however, the best you can come up with is to provide a link to some opinionated piece that does not provide actual representative or convincing data.

I will admit that the links to the Blockchain.info charts that I provided could be more detailed regarding how those charts arrive at their conclusions (regarding average blocksize and average transaction times with fees), yet, nonetheless, the charts that I provided (as far as I can tell) are the best information that is available from blockchain.info on those particular topics (and they do not support the conclusions that you have been attempting to make regarding some kind of emergency in regards to blocksize limit, fees or transaction times).

Again, I am asking whether you have some better charts or some better factual information that I am missing that help to establish the points that you seem to be attempting to make (besides some opinion piece from someone who is apparently attempting to spin facts in order to make an argument to increase the blocksize).

I am completely open to changing my opinion in a variety of ways if there are actual facts to support conclusions that are different from my understanding of the matter.