Quote from: Spaceman_Spiff on August 31, 2016, 01:25:23 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on August 30, 2016, 11:30:40 PM

Quote from: Andre# on August 30, 2016, 05:27:03 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on August 30, 2016, 01:07:02 AM

and also, let's build up (and continue to build up) our user base.

Not possible, Bitcoin is running at max capacity (250,000 tx per day). New users can only be added if existing users use Bitcoin less.

Maybe we can just agree to disagree? I think that you are just making shit up, when you are suggesting that bitcoin is running at max capacity, and if your standard is comparing to visa or master card or some bullshit like that, then you are being a bit unrealistic in comparing apples and oranges. The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of room on the bitcoin network for people who appreciate the value of decentralized immutable transmissions and holding of value. So, in that regard, maybe if you are considering bitcoin to be full, then you are expecting bitcoin to be something other than what it is?

Certainly, my use of transmitting value on the blockchain has increased in the past year. In 2014 and 2015, I probably conducted around 30 to 50 transactions on the blockchain. In 2016, I have nearly doubled my quantity of transactions on the blockchain (maybe getting close to 100 transactions in the past year), yet contrary to your assertion, I have not experienced any meaningful nor significant perception of any kind of problem in sending and receiving transactions in a fairly expedited manner to whoever the fuck I want. The timeline for the transactions being confirmed is very similar over the years. Maybe the fees went up a bit, from a few cents to nearly $.10 from time to time, but I can also send lower fee transactions, if I want.

Surely, if I send money from a bank or through another traditional payment system, I can send/get money quicker, but the fees are likely to be higher with less control by myself regarding when and to whom I can send usually, those kinds of quick transactions are interbank (or banking institutions that have relationships with one another). Most ACH transfers take several business days to receive, and over the weekend I am kind of screwed. Bitcoin offers a certain kind of set of features that is unique to it.

Maybe this question of "maxed out" is a matter of perception, because I perceive bitcoin to be quite well functional and well under capacity, and we also have a lot of developments in the works - even though there is no current emergency. In this regard, if I can get a transaction to go through within 24 hours, and I can accomplish such transaction with almost no fees, if I want to process it without fees. I can send such transaction anyone that I want 365 days of the year, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. And, some folks consider that this system is NOT working quite well, as it is? Yes, we have improvements on the way, including seg wit, but there is not really any kind of rush when we already have less than 24 hours to confirm independent censorship resistant, immutable transactions. Hypothetically, if I want to send money to Wikileaks, no one can really stop me if I am using bitcoin... and in less than 24 hours, (less than one hour in most cases), viola, they will have their money.

It's basic logic. Assuming the size of a transaction stays constant, with a 1MB block already full of transactions, any new transactions that want to be included in that block need to take the place of other transactions.

You could argue that there are unnecessary transactions left in the block, and that we should try to be maximally efficient with the block space.
Or that it is ok for the bitcoin system to only be used by those who are willing and able to pay the most for it.
In my estimation, that will always be the reality, there will always be some equilibrium point between fee price and demand. The question is: will we succeed in making that fee price low enough that most people will chose to use bitcoin for various purposes. And can we accomplish that without significantly compromising the basic fundamentals that give bitcoin it's value (decentralisation etc.).

That balancing is already being done. The blocksize limit remains sufficiently large enough for today's volume, and there are solutions in the works that will need to be tested and assessed as to whether they are adequate for additional volume that is likely to come to bitcoin, or if additional solutions need to be employed, such as a blocksize limit increase.

I am having difficulties understanding why several posters want to continue with arguments suggesting that bitcoin's price is being hampered by some kind of lack of adequate solution in respect to the blocksize limit, when there is nearly no evidence (beyond mere speculation and "logic") asserting that there is supposedly some kind of problem. If we recall, there were fairly vigorous arguments being made about supposed blocksize limit problems in August 2015 while prices began to rise and spiked up to $500 in early November 2015... and then surely we had another correction and a six month consolidation period (and continuing whining about the blocksize limit supposedly handicapping bitcoin), and then another price spike that began in late May and took us to upper $700s.... Yes, we are currently in a kind of correction cycle and even consolidation, but blocksize limit is NOT what is causing the current price dynamics (or hampering bitcoin in any kind of meaningful way).

Yeah, surely, many of us (non bigblock proponents) could concede that if there were additional confidence regarding "bitcoin scaling" then possibly that confidence could cause higher and bigger rallys, but there is no real guarantee that supposed "solutions to the bitcoin scaling questions" would cause some kind of sustainable bubble or even a bubble that would be decent and adequate enough to allow for cashing out (such as a pump into the $3k to $5k price territories).

Anyhow, I am suggesting that there does not seem to be any kind of need for some folks to continue to be pissy and moany, and whining about a "scaling solution" when in fact such supposed "scaling solution" would not constitute an indispensable factor that is going to cause a price increase (even though folks are speculating about the necessity of such).