Quote from: isoneguy on February 06, 2017, 12:26:26 PM

I think we'd also have to start slipping nodes a few satoshi's from transaction fees if something is implemented that makes the chain excessively large.

There is a very slim chance to gain consensus on something like that IMO.

Quote from: DooMAD on February 06, 2017, 12:33:07 PM

Plus we shouldn't forget about the "open" part. It's hardly an open system if people are forced to transact off-chain because on-chain is constantly full and prohibitively expensive.

Wrong. Once you are actually on LN, i.e. you have locked in funds, transacting is both faster and cheaper[/b] than doing so on-chain.

Quote from: DooMAD on February 06, 2017, 12:33:07 PM

Right now it's all theory, so I'm not going to dismiss franky1's concerns. I certainly hope they prove to be unfounded, but if there's any chance they're not...

Looks like you're uninformed about this troll. He does sometimes have some valid points, but that's it.

Quote from: DooMAD on February 06, 2017, 12:33:07 PM

Precisely. Thinking ahead and considering the potential shortcomings about that proposal. It's not "nonsense" to do that. It's sensible. So why are we shooting down people talking about Lightning in exactly the same way?

Because trolls and FUDers post nonsense about it. You've seen an example above my previous post (franky) and below it (kiklo).

Quote from: zimmah on February 06, 2017, 02:36:57 PM

Agreed, we have been sitting at 1MB for way too long already and it's holding bitcoin back by a lot.
We are years behind because of it, and altcoins will overtake bitcoin if we keep the 1MB bitcoin for a while longer.

You must be joking. Nobody reasonable wants these shitcoins. Out of a 1000, maybe 2 are decent.