Quote from: jbreher on November 27, 2016, 10:44:26 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 27, 2016, 10:34:19 PM

Quote from: jbreher on November 27, 2016, 10:24:53 PM

I am pointing out that the argument against increasing the blocksize directly by changing the maxblocksize parameter, solely because today, technology dies not accommodate Visa scale upon a decentralized blockchain, is absurd. That is what the fuck I am talking about

You still don't get it

I'm not talking about setting that maxblocksize parameter to 100Gb right now, I'm not even talking about it as such. I just show that you are pretty much disconnected from reality. At first, you start saying that there are serious issues at hand and eagerly try to prove your point. I can understand that. Then you jump into the far future and start claiming that everything will be tip-top even if the block size gets increased to 100Gb. But what about current issues after all, why they are still bugging us, today, not in the distant future?

Well, you are the person who initially tied my conversation with Carlton Banks into my conversation with you. You misunderstood what I was saying about the rate of change required to support onchain transaction increases, with our conversation that average recent actual blocksize directly contradicts your assertion that Chinese miners were at that time artificially sabotaging the system by choking transaction inclusion.

To begin with, it was not your conversation with Carlton Banks since it was not you (nor was it Carlton Banks) who started this topic on increasing block size to increase the transaction rates. You joined this discussion in pretty much the same way as I did, and in fact, you did it after me, so there is hardly any reason to make it look as if I intervened in your conversation with Carlton Banks. Further, my assumption of the Chinese miners artificially ignoring transactions is in no way relevant to this discussion, nor has it been proven wrong itself (just in case)...

So what's your point really?