Quote from: zimmah on September 22, 2016, 03:12:27 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on September 21, 2016, 01:36:45 AM

Quote from: nioc on September 21, 2016, 01:28:20 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on September 21, 2016, 01:15:13 AM

Quote from: chopstick on September 20, 2016, 08:50:37 PM

Core continues to strangle BTC's transaction capacity for some (idiotic) reason. Money still flowing into alts.

A large price drop is practically guaranteed.

You have been on this blocksize limit kick for quite a while, and seeming to continue to ignore actual facts regarding ongoing and continuing developments, including the pending implementation of seg wit (including the timeline involved for its vetting and testing prior to implementation).

Is it April yet?

As you likely realize - a meaningless talking point to suggest that there was some kind of guaranteed solution.. ridiculous.

There is no urgency, so there is no need to suggest that April was some kind of necessary. There are a lot of ongoing developments with seg wit and related, and you are missing these matters when you continue to suggest that there is some kind of defect or suggesting that bitcoin is "behind schedule" in some kind of way.

There is urgency.

Bitcoin is losing market share to altcoins (both in market cap as well as transaction volume and trading volume).

Blocks are more often full than not, indicating there is demand for bigger blocks.

To say the matter is not urgent is a lie.

There's a reason the debate started in 2013 and the debate became more fierce in 2015.

I don't understand how your saying that the problem is urgent over and over and over, makes the problem more urgent.

I think that seg wit was revealed as a potential and agreed upon solution in early December 2015, and code was released several months later and thereafter, there has been testing and even various forms of implementation that is not completely live yet, but getting really close.

You also frame this blocksize limit discussion as something going back to 2013, and sure you can exaggerate whatever history that you want.

I would think that if there had been serious proposals of code, besides XT and classic, that just focused on technical issues, then that code would have been considered more seriously. XT and classic both made attempts at changing governance, which certainly is not focusing on technicals or technical necessities.

The fact of the matter, there is no urgency if you focus only on technical necessities rather than getting caught up with governance concerns.

Quote from: zimmah on September 22, 2016, 03:12:27 PM

It was because people actually recognized the problem before it became a problem, but for some reason (he who shall not be named) now that it has actually become a problem because no action was taken it's barely even discussed anymore.

What do you mean by "he who shall not be named"? Are you getting into personalities rather than focusing on actual facts?

Quote from: zimmah on September 22, 2016, 03:12:27 PM

Quote

Larger block size means lower security and therefore lower price. So no, if you want the price to go down you should increase block size.

Larger blocksize don't mean lower security, those two have nothing to do with each other.

This quote was coming from someone else, so I am not suggesting to make the blocksize smaller... I think that part of the point of the matter, is that you don't want to go around making willy-nilly and unnecessary changes, and moreso if the changes seem to be rushed and/or controversial. You err on the side of non controversial and necessary changes.

Quote from: zimmah on September 22, 2016, 03:12:27 PM

Quote from: above1000 on September 21, 2016, 06:08:12 AM

so crossing under 600 / could this next fall trigger the next rise,. ? / the pump must come,.

the pump wont come as long as the blocksize debate isn't resolved.

I doubt that there is any kind of major influence of price based on the actual technicals of the blocksize limit debate. As you may recall, and you even seem to concede, the blocksize limit debate was ramped up in mid-to-late 2015, and soon thereafter BTC prices shot to $500 and then again in May/June 2016, prices shot to nearly $800. Sure there is some concern over having a dividing and controversial community, but that is different from the actual technicals and the actual technical improvements that are in the very soon^tm bitcoin pipeline.

Quote from: zimmah on September 22, 2016, 03:12:27 PM

Quote from: XCASH on September 21, 2016, 01:25:50 PM

Events make more of an impact on the price than all the block size stuff. Last November when China "unbanned" Bitcoin again the price shot up, and nobody gave a crap about the block size.

Of course no one gave a crap about the blocksize back than, because the average block size was not anywhere near the blocksize limit back then.

Now it is though, and it's not supposed to be.

Whatever, the problem has not gotten much worse between November 2015 and now. Bitcoin transactions are still being processed securely and in a fairly timely manner with fairly low fees. And by the way in an immutable decentralized manner, which is bitcoin differentiating factor and claim to fame. Wink