Quote from: hacknoid on September 24, 2016, 02:00:51 AM

Quote from: zimmah on September 23, 2016, 02:06:08 PM

Quote from: hacknoid on September 23, 2016, 12:17:11 AM

Quote from: jehst on September 21, 2016, 11:08:18 PM

30x -> 10x -> 2x

so the next one will be what? 0.2x?

that would imply that the parabolic rises are done.

did bitcoin conquer volatility in 7 years? gold and silver are still experiencing parabolic rises after thousands of years.

this isn't over.

No, I definitely don't think this is over. As I said above

Quote from: hacknoid on September 16, 2016, 04:09:12 PM

I think this can all be attributed to Bitcoin reaching a local saturation point; not that we're anywhere near potential capacity, but we are in terms of current TPS as well as users. We have reached the chasm, and now need to truly cross it into mainstream if we expect to see significant growth in the future.

At best, we probably have a few million users of Bitcoin currently. That's less than 0.1% of the population; if that's all Bitcoin ever gains in terms of traction, then maybe exponential growth is over. But if we cross the chasm and reach orders of magnitiude more users, then the future growth will eclipse anything we have seen to date.

And with things like the machine payable web (21 Inc.) and Brave browser coming as practical applications of Bitcoin for people, who knows? And there are of course tons of more potential future applications, most of which haven't even been imagined yet...

They both rely on microtransactions, and bitcoin isn't ready for micro-transactions and will never be ready if these stubborn folks won't get past the whole

Can't see any way around it for the 21 Inc. applications, but Brave can cache a lot of transactions off chain and then do bulk charges against a wallet, if necessary. So it may not be held up. But,

Quote

Quote

1MB blocksize is more than enough, in fact, we should decentralize more by reducing blocksize

herp derp.

This whole 1MB nonsense is damaging bitcoin so hard.

Agreed. 1000%. Can't understand how anyone can think that artificially crippling a system is good for innovation. I wonder how many potential apps are stalled simply because the bandwidth isn't there? And as for all the arguments against increasing it - they are all just theories until the limit is lifted. Remember - Bitcoin is still beta software; this is the time to see what happens when necessary changes are made. The system is resilient, and all the players have a vested interest in it's success. If someone really wanted to kill it, they would attempt it no matter what the block size was; trying to hide behind a paper wall doesn't make the danger go away.

Off chain applications are not a valid solution, will bring new problems, the solution is just increasing the mb limit, as simple as that, this whole history reminds me when "Shortsighted people once laughed at the idea of a $1,000 Bitcoin. Today they laugh at the idea of a 1,000MB block." -Roger Ver