Gamblers don't choose where to play, because of the fees (or rake, or house edge, etc)... they choose to play because of the games being offered... the rake is secondary.
If fees were the primary choice to choose where to gamble? Everyone would be playing at Seals With Clubs. (referral link in my sig below
)
-- Smoov
If fees were the primary choice to choose where to gamble? Everyone would be playing at Seals With Clubs. (referral link in my sig below
)-- Smoov
Both are factors.
As I said, fee pressure would be enough to keep the volume from taking up all the transaction real estate.
I'd be willing to bet on that
Raising the block size much more poses very real problems in terms of storage and bandwidth, and I don't think it's necessary at all.
From a message I just read a little while ago, it appears SD is paying plenty in fees, according to the rules, and if people don't like it, that's just too bad. As long as the transactions are being processed properly, without regard for who sent to who and why, with fees or without as appropriate according to the priority rules for processing them, SD is under no obligation to kowtow to "purists" who find SD's (or SR's, or whoever else ends up being the scapegoat of the month) use of the currency to somehow offend their fragile sensibilities of what is or isn't good enough to use bitcoin, in whatever manner they choose.
Cryptocoin should be agnostic. All it should care about is, is this a valid tx, and if it is, then throw it in the queue to be prioritized like all of the other ones.
Nobody using cryptocoin, is in a position to tell me what I can or can't do with my coin, and this bandwagon bullshit trying to make SD the scapegoat here is laughable, AT BEST.
No, this recent problem with the fork, wasn't caused by SD... it was caused by short-sightedness of various programmers directly and not directly involved with cryptocoin development.
Plenty of blame to go around here...
but... being able to stand up and take responsibility for their own oversights, is a very rare quality in today's world... hence, the need for a scapegoat... that's the only place where SD comes in here.
-- Smoov
I'm not making SD the scapegoat. I don't advocate for its blocking, simply leaving the blocksize alone would make transactions expensive enough SD would die on its own (along with micropayments).
It's just a fact of life that we cannot raise the block size so big that no system with free or negligible fees wouldn't take up the whole transaction space.
Looking forward, the easiest, most conservative patch was to just ban SD, BUT this is not what I'm calling for. The problem is that DDoSing the blockchain is simply allowed (could be even worse than SD, it could be on 0.00000 fees, at all - most devs want to support this "for the time being" meaning years to come).