Quote from: DoublerHunter on May 18, 2017, 07:50:26 AM

I think bitcoin network just need more miners so it can sustain the network of bitcoin and to continue working. The only problem for the bitcoin is the volume of transactions that has been done by a lot of new users and the miners are struggling on how to confirm all of those so having a lot of extra miners will help the bitcoin network to be fine again.

Bullshit. You are a classic signature spammer.

Quote from: classicsucks on May 18, 2017, 08:34:14 AM

I'm not an Unlimited fan, but this just sounds horrible when I read it.

Bitcoin Unlimited is a disaster, and this has been proven with constant exploits being found in their *production ready* software.

Quote from: classicsucks on May 18, 2017, 08:34:14 AM

A functioning Lightning Network doesn't even exist yet, and there are still serious questions about the centralized nature of it, patents by Blockstream, and the outright corporate take-over of bitcoin.

Complete and utter bullshit. LN is already working and there have been several transactions on both test-nets and main-nets (see Litecoin). There are no patents of Blockstream related to it.

Quote from: classicsucks on May 18, 2017, 08:34:14 AM

And Segwit is a horrendous hack.

Again, bullshit. Segwit is not a "horrendous hack". This is propaganda made up by people with no technical knowledge, see Jonald as an example.

Quote from: classicsucks on May 18, 2017, 08:34:14 AM

Finally, bitcoin could function fine with a simple fork to a bigger block size, with a one-line code change.

No. DoS attack vector due to O(n^2) validation time (among other things).

Quote from: classicsucks on May 18, 2017, 08:34:14 AM

Or, we could wait around another 6 months for the mempool to become unmanageable, and let Unlimited hard fork the network, which could unleash total mayhem.

UASF to Segwit, then:
1) Schedule a minuscule block size increase HF.
2) Prepare Schnorr and signature aggregation.
3) LN, sidechains, et. al.