Quote from: dadrdalk on February 18, 2017, 09:27:25 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 15, 2017, 08:22:41 PM

Quote from: hv_ on February 15, 2017, 01:15:15 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 14, 2017, 07:42:32 PM

Quote from: classicsucks on February 14, 2017, 07:35:31 PM

Quote from: -ck on February 10, 2017, 09:16:17 PM

On the other hand, "minor" changes in the BU code even before their hard fork activation have already led to invalid block generation.

Remember: BU and Segwit are not the only two choices in the world... 2MB hard fork is VERY easy from the software side. The network must consent, but it has been done successfully in the past, in one day. No politics in that statement.

At this point, lines are drawn, and people are unlikely to accept Segwit, regardless of whether a blocksize increase is included or not.

JayGuanGee, [facepalm], I can't even engage with you, please look at this chart and tell me there is no problem again: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?daysAverageString=7×pan=all (7-day average mempool size).

You cannot engage because you are continuing to exaggerate and to make things up. Yes, blocks are still full, but transactions are going through and fees remain relatively low. and we are still achieving secure immutable decentralized value storage and transfer of value. This bitcoin thingie is world changing, and even if there is no solution (such as seg wit or larger blocks), bitcoin brings a lot of value, even in its current state. So don't be trying to suggest that bitcoin needs to compete with Visa or with some payment system, when it achieves a whole other level of added value, even in it's current state and even if some variation of its current state were to continue for the next 20 years.

I feel sorry for you. You've also been fallen into the BS fee trap. Do the math: Fees are just not needed for the next years...

Maybe I don't get it.... what is the BS fee trap?

I have done a lot of transactions on the blockchain in recent months (even in the past 12 months), and there has not been any meaningful or significant change in fees. Yeah, surely that may change in several years or even change in 100 years, but our current situation does not seem to be an emergency, is it? How could it be when I am paying between $.10 and $.50 with some variation and flexibility to send varying amounts of transactions in the .5BTC to 20BTC range.... Sure, if I send more, then there is a better value, but I still don't understand whatever point that you are attempting to make, hv_ regarding a supposed "BS fee trap."

That you do not have a problem does not mean there is not a problem.

I will agree with any kind of denigration of anecdotal evidence; however, I have made this assertion several times and in several threads. If someone is attempting to suggest that there is a problem, then they have both an evidentiary and logic burden to establish the extent of the problem and to show how that problem logically is causing whatever issues that they suggest that it is causing and/or they have additional burdens to show that whatever actions that they are suggesting will fix the identified "problem". The burden is not on me to show that there is not a problem.

Quote from: dadrdalk on February 18, 2017, 09:27:25 AM

1. This hinders mainstream adoption. If many more people use Bitcoin, they will have to either wait for an insane amount of time, or pay insane fees (or, most likely, both). In fact, I read somewhere that companies have been turning down Bitcoin because of scaling.

O.k. first you assume that there is a problem of what? fees? transaction times? And then you assume that mainstream adoption would be better if the "problems" did not exist. These remain very difficult propositions to establish beyond merely saying them in a couple of sentences.

What is "an insane amount of time?" and how do you know that an "insane amount of time" would develop? sounds very speculative and without much of any factual or logical basis in such assertion.

I already described my waiting experiences to currently be between a few minutes and a few days with very low fees. I find that quite amazing with the level of control and security and decentralization that exists in bitcoin.. I mean I control it and no third party is necessary, except to the extent that I choose those kinds of options instead of direct transactions.

Regarding companies turning down bitcoin: They turn it down for all kinds of reasons. So fucking what? Adoption can take a long time and should not be rushed with some lame and ill-thought-out innovations. We have already seen a lot of behind the scenes ways in which a lot of folks are getting into bitcoin (including companies with some of their bullshit blockchain discussions), and these kinds of ongoing adoptions by both consumers and companies are continuing to contribute to ongoing upwards price pressures. In the coming years, we are likely going to continue to see a variety of continued adoptions by companies and individuals - some of that adoption, innovation and development will be upfront and public and other adoption, innovation and development will be behind the scenes.

And, yeah a lot of this would be better if seg wit were included in the mix, but even if seg wit is not included in the mix the ongoing adoption, innovation and development is going to continue to take place.. could be better, but we can also roll with the punches.. it is what it is... and if folks do not feel that bitcoin is ready for seg wit, then we continue in the current state of bitcoin until there is enough inspiration to include seg wit as another improvement to an already great and paradigm shifting phenomenon (namely bitcoin).

Quote from: dadrdalk on February 18, 2017, 09:27:25 AM

2. It may not be too much for you, but it may be too much for some people, and it certainly rules out some applications (like micropayments).

Again you are seeming to suggest that I have some kind of anecdotal experiences that do not matter. Who are these supposed people that are anxious about scaling? Are they reasonable people? Are they expecting too much too quickly? Are they considering matters beyond some superficial feelings? If they are so anxious about the current state of bitcoin, then have them find a value storage and transfer system that is more comfortable for them and their situation and what they want to do or they can divest a bit of their investment in bitcoin into something else. It is not really a big deal if bitcoin does not serve every single person and all situations. In many western countries, we have all kinds of micro-payment options, and those can be used to the extent that they provide value to folks. Options are going to vary from place to place, and bitcoin's feasiblility is going to vary from place to place.

Sure, micropayments might not be as practical to bitcoin as compared with other systems, and so fucking what? These areas are likely going to develop over time. It seems that seg wit would likely assist with micropayments based on second layer solutions that can be added once seg wit is in place, but it seems very short sighted to either want bitcoin to currently serve as a micropayment system, when there is still a lot of applications and developments that need to evolve in the space - including the creations of additional user-friendly systems in bitcoin. In other words, I don't really understand the desire to get all worked up about micropayments at this point in time, when bitcoin is offering all kinds of great stuff that includes secure immutable decentralized value storage and transfer. There is no other coin or system that even comes close to bitcoin in that regard. If you know of one, name it.