Quote from: jbreher on November 24, 2016, 01:35:28 AM

You are the one with the outlandish claim. Proving it is on you.

That is a fallacy. As expected by the BU folk.

Quote from: jbreher on November 24, 2016, 01:35:28 AM

Exactly. Now do you see how ludicrous your suggestion seems to someone who supports scaling via emergent consensus of maxblocksize?

That is inherently dangerous; why someone wants to believe otherwise is beyond reason.

Quote from: jbreher on November 24, 2016, 01:35:28 AM

No. "Mainstream people should not be trying to decide technical limits though" is not a statement of fact. It is dogma.

Fact.

Quote from: jbreher on November 24, 2016, 01:35:28 AM

Except we are not speaking of random people. We are speaking of emergent consensus of the very people who have something at stake.

Random or not random it is likely that those people have no idea about the system capabilities and that turned out to be true.

Quote from: franky1 on November 24, 2016, 01:54:38 AM

and show a stupid average over a stupid 24 hours.
wow. the other day it hit 24%, then down to 14%, then upto 25% then down to 16% then upto 19%........ LOL

how about use actual count of 2016 blocks and get a number that actually applies to the rule.

Are you not aware that it has not even been 2016 blocks since Segwit signalling started? Weird.

Quote from: franky1 on November 24, 2016, 01:54:38 AM

malleability does nothing for LN.

False.

Quote from: franky1 on November 24, 2016, 01:54:38 AM

-snip-

Stop creating unnecessarily large posts that have nothing to do with what is being discused. I do not think that any sane person bothers with reading them anymore.

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on November 24, 2016, 07:08:50 AM

Oh, it will have an end all right. If Lauda gets his way it will be an end of Bitcoin as currency and hello bitcoin as SWIFT MKII.

Standard fallacy by misguided and/or delusional people.

The problem is far more complex that what you tend to show. There are currently two (primary) implemented proposals for on chain scaling:
1) Segwit via soft fork (Core).
2) Block size increase via hard fork (maximum 16 MB) (BU).

Okay, so the BU crowd wants to scale via a hard fork. But why this specific proposal? There are other, much more reasonable ones (e.g. the one with 17% yearly growth) that could work. I am in support of a hard fork post-Segwit, but I'm surely not going to support random node operators voting on these limits up to an absurdly large limit (16x higher than what is currently available).