Quote from: jbreher on February 09, 2017, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: classicsucks on February 09, 2017, 05:36:06 AM

Unlimited is not a great solution

and it won't be adopted.

In implementing emergent consensus, BU is a near-ideal solution.
Nodes up over 30% in last two weeks alone: https://coin.dance/nodes/unlimited.

We can argue the merits, but I think it's just pragmatic to assume that neither Segwit nor Unlimited will move forward and be adopted. Stalemate.

Quote from: jbreher on February 09, 2017, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: classicsucks on February 09, 2017, 05:36:06 AM

Unlimited only exists to block Segwit

All right, now you've pissed me off. Who are you to tell those behind BU what its purpose is? You are 100%, categorically, indisputably, wrong in this assertion.

I should've removed the word "only". I understand that Unlimited is a solid proposal, but it's rise clearly correlates with the release and failure of Segwit. Classic and XT never got over 10%, but I think they would've matched Unlimited's performance if they were the "hot alternative" when Segwit dropped.

Quote from: jbreher on February 09, 2017, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: classicsucks on February 09, 2017, 05:36:06 AM

Also, BTC velocity is a touchy subject because much of the transaction base is spam and churn.

Inasmuch as there is no objective way of looking at any given transaction, and classifying it as spam or notspam, I 'forbid' you from using this characterization. OK, 'forbid' gets a winkie: Wink

But the term 'spam' is useless.

I disagree with this statement. If a transaction has greater than an arbitrary number of inputs, it's likely spam. If a transaction is larger than some arbitrary number of bytes, it's likely spam. I haven't researched the finer details of this topic, but I'm confident that miners could start filtering transactions that look really wasteful. I'm sure it's a touchy subject, but clear heads can resolve it.