Quote from: Andre# on March 10, 2016, 11:38:26 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 10, 2016, 12:58:32 AM

Quote from: Andre# on March 09, 2016, 08:48:26 PM

Sorry for making fun of you (I couldn't resist). But average block size isn't a good metric. Empty blocks (and also soft limits) skew the result a lot, that's the reason why ChartBuddy takes that into account. Also, like in the rush hour, there are particular time windows that traffic spills over, e.g. when only 3 or 4 blocks in an hour are found. So there are isolated periods of delays, and the required fees go up and down with it. On top of that, not all wallets have good fee prediction algorithms (and some don't at all -- I think blockchain.info still uses a flat fee).

All this explains there are some users who have bad experiences, while other don't have any. If I send txs, I use my Mycelium wallet, which works like a breeze. Like you, I never have serious delays. I do sometimes pay high fees, though. My record fee has been 128 sat/B (0.000621 BTC in total) on 21 January.

But that doesn't mean that there's no capacity problem developing. Nor that there are no bad user experiences because of it. And those damage the reputation of Bitcoin. New users have to know too much of the workings of Bitcoin to protect themselves from having a bad experience. About transaction sizes, rate per byte, double checking cointape.com . It's damaging.

Saying "there's no problem (yet) -- so no need to worry" just doesn't cut it. We saw it coming for a year already, it's happening now, and it will get worse.

I believe that this particular response to me is cogent and reasonable; however, I really have concerns about placing too much weight in Chartbuddy. I understand that Richie_T provided various explanations, but there is no meaningful explanation in the chartbuddy "explanation" link, and really, we should have some third party source like Blockchain.info that provides more specifics to be able to hone in and to get better detailed information.

Otherwise, I remain quite unconvinced about a large amount of anectdotal whining and screaming and even admitted exaggerations that seem to be more emotional rather than factual.

Based on the evidence that I have seen to date, I remain convinced that the fulblocalypse emergency is more exaggerated than it is actual, and I am of the belief that measures, analysis and considerations currently underway, including seg wit and potential considerations regarding further changes that may be considered after the implementation of seg wit are sufficiently adequate under the current conditions and timeline.

Yes people are hysterical and emotional and vocal and attempting to bring the price down to bring attention to their concerns, but that kind of emotional and "consumer" behavior just seems to be inadequate in proving any kind of factual point that we got some kind of emergency on our hands at the present moment, and even several months into the future.

show me some actual data that is more convincing than the main two charts on blockchain.info, and I will incorporate that data into my consideration and/or reconsideration of the matter.

Again.. for ease of reference, here are the two main charts that I find factually material to the at-hand issue .

Average blocksize
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=1year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Median confirmation time with fees.
https://blockchain.info/charts/median-confirmation-time?timespan=1year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

By the way, within each of the two charts, I selected to look at the matter over the past year, but what is nice about the info contained in those charts is that you can click on various timelines in order to see the ups and downs of these average numbers in order to zoom in and to zoom out. If blockchain.info could come up some better charts, then that would be great too, because they seem to be a pretty credible source in this space concerning various things going on in respect to the bitcoin blockchain.

Perhaps this animated graph of block size and transaction fee can show you.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.nl/2016/03/block-size-and-transaction-fee-animation.html

A more detailed (and non-animated) view:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ze8NXBUY7Z0/VtpIeA1cFYI/AAAAAAAAFeU/Ju1kct5bWHk/s1600/post2_plot2_2016-03-05.png

I will take it on faith that those graphs are factually accurate.

they still don't demonstrate some kind of emergency state, and even though a bit more granular than blockchain.info, they are not really showing anything that should cause panic.

I do wish that blockchain.info would come out with some more granular charts to maybe break down by hourly or even shorter periods and to be able to zoom in or out in order to better see if there are some rush hour periods.. and maybe even if there are ways to show charts that separate spam and legit transactions I get the sense that seg wit filters out spam too, so maybe we are going to witness some better representations of what's going on once seg wit is live?.

Anyhow, there is work on seg wit at the moment and a plan to begin with that (coming soon) and then to give further consideration to whether an additional physical block size limitation needs to be incorporated as well.. so I really am still having difficulties grappling with some of the panick.