Quote from: inca on March 11, 2016, 09:28:15 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on March 11, 2016, 09:19:10 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2016, 08:40:58 PM

I doubt anyone is suggesting small blocks forever, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence of an emergency need to take some kind of drastic measures to increase the blocksize limit on an emergency basis.. and in that regard, the impression and/or creation of an emergency seems to be largely fabricated with a bunch of loud and whiny voices.

I think it was something like a year ago when Hearn predicted that urgent action must be taken or Bitcoin would ...crash. Yes, he said crash. The rationale was something like "ohh nodes will fill their mempools and nodes will start crashing and ohhhh, we need bigger blocks".

For a programmer it's very suspect why he didn't simply write a patch and say "here guys, this will fix nodes from crashing through a parameter that sets mempool size"... Why promote a hard fork for 8-20mb increases (which would be 20-50 times the legit activity of the network) instead of simply patching the software with a mempool limit, as 0.12 does?

The whole crisis / urgency scenario was bullshit, as was the "problem=>reaction=>solution" - in terms of ...proposed "solution".

For some reason your answer entirely misses the fact that blocks are filling up. A cheap transaction flooding attack brought the network to it's knees just last week.

You are that dog cartoon saying 'everything is fine' as the house burns down around you.

"We can't have 1mbforevah"
"We want 1cent-txsforevah" (and if we get to 2 cents we say the network is down to its knees because we didn't pay the 2-3-5 cent fee)

Newsflash: The system is not based on the premise of 1 cent txs forevah.

Fees are dynamic, based on the load. You don't pay the fees => you get in line. And wait.

The network operates normally for those that follow proper tx pricing. If they don't, it's usually because their wallet makes wrong assumptions about fees. They should upgrade to core 0.12. But then they'd have to download 10gb txs and 60gb spam... ooops.

Quote from: AliceGored on March 11, 2016, 09:31:31 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on March 11, 2016, 09:19:10 PM

The whole crisis / urgency scenario was bullshit, as was the "problem=>reaction=>solution" - in terms of ...proposed "solution".

Amen.

"the malicious miner DoS limit from 2010 is still in place, delays & fees up, investor confidence in future capacity growth down => listen to technical experts: to increase a constant would be a harsh blow to muh decentralization, non-mining rasb pi node on LJR internet is sad => let me tell you about highly connected and well funded Blockstream pre-paid scrip payments ~~lightning hubs~~, out in 2 weeks."

Once "XT" appeared to be dead and buried the market went from low 200's to 500's.

Is this lack of "investor confidence"?

When did it go back down?

When we had the coordinated threat of forking by Gavin + the FUD by Hearn.

When did it go back up?

When Classic was buried.

The only thing the market cares is contentious hard forks. The capacity issue is priced in as are the dev responses to it (which, contrary to the propaganda, is not 1mbforevah).