Quote from: Fatman3001 on May 25, 2016, 09:39:35 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 25, 2016, 09:23:04 PM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on May 25, 2016, 07:01:37 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on May 25, 2016, 02:27:03 AM

Quote from: chopstick on May 25, 2016, 02:02:23 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on May 25, 2016, 01:54:08 AM

Quote from: chopstick on May 24, 2016, 01:19:35 PM

"Unfortunately, I know of multiple companies with more than 100,000,000 users that have put their bitcoin integration on hold because there isn't enough current capacity in the Bitcoin network for their users to start using Bitcoin. Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin." -Roger Ver

The real question you should be asking, is who lied to these companies that Bitcoin can't handle their users?

How exactly would it be lying? BTC couldn't handle the tx capacity added from these users right now. Forcing them to engage in a bidding war with eachother for blockspace is not good business sense. It might be able to handle them in the future, but not right now, and the now is all that matters for these companies.

There's no reason they couldn't use off-chain transactions until Lightning is ready, as daytraders have been doing since 2011.
If the companies are really concerned about it, they could also fund development of Lightning to get it done even faster.

Such decentralization. Where does Bitcoin fit in all of this?

Quote

The limitation isn't Bitcoin - it's what the companies are willing to do the work for.
Blaming Bitcoin is just propaganda to enable laziness for greedy companies that want to reap the benefits without doing any of the work.

No, it's Bitcoin. Those greedy companies are supposed to be greedy. What part of trustless is it you don't understand?

You are getting ahead of yourself, fatty.

We gotta walk before we run, and I believe that the suggestion is that while some systems are still being built and expanded, there are reasonable transitional practices that can be taken if folks are really interested in building upon bitcoin that is already strong, but appearing to become stronger with upcoming implementations of seg wit and whatever other potential scaling solutions that may be needed over the passage of time.

Look, retard, for now, off-chain txs means something else than the Bitcoin network.

If my telephone company sent me a letter saying I'll have to use carrier pigeons for a while because they're having capacity problems, I wouldn't be much chuffed. And for them to expect potential new customers to adopt their mobile services when they'll have to use carrier pigeons for the first months, maybe up to a year, is stupid to the brink of brain damaged.

Sometimes you have to go ugly early. You, of all people, should know that.

I stand by my earlier comment. You have not really added anything to this discussion in your latest post. There are various stages of development and bitcoin is in a great place, even if there happens to be some outside developments, off chain transactions and sometimes even incoherent developments. Part of the brilliance of decentralization is that people and businesses are free to innovate and experiment in a large number of ways that may directly or indirectly complement or fit into bitcoin. Nonetheless, within the variety of creativeness and developments around bitcoin, there are some developers who are either completely attempting to ignore bitcoin or to engage in a variety of conduct that attempts to undermine bitcoin - even during times in which there could be bitcoin innovations and investments that they could make into bitcoin that would potentially benefit themselves and their business while making the bitcoin infrastructure stronger.