Quote from: AngryDwarf on March 21, 2017, 10:43:02 AM

They might not be real financial transactions, but they may be transactions that utilise the blockchain to store immutable data. That may or may not be spam depending on your viewpoint.

It is spam. End of discussion.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 23, 2017, 08:03:44 PM

B) keep the blocksize and just increase the fees so its more expensive for everyone to transaction, while not increasing bandwidth for anyone
-snip-

Segwit is an block size increase. Quit your whining.

Quote from: leopard2 on March 24, 2017, 12:08:13 AM

LTC, PPC , NMC.

Those are good examples, but the interest for them seems to be lacking nowadays. Everyone wants to profit from the ETH & DASH scam coins.

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 24, 2017, 06:43:52 AM

So, the problem is that more on-chain transaction capacity is needed (which is highly debatable, considering there's good evidence it's all spam driven)

So the obvious solution is to make the transactions and their signatures smaller, so that we can have more capacity per block.

Ironically the people who stated that they care about the *user experience* are the ones who made it worse by introducing extreme volatility with their HF propaganda.