Quote from: Lauda on June 15, 2017, 03:19:33 PM

Quote from: Ibian on June 15, 2017, 03:13:57 PM

Your habit of starting everything you say with something about your own intellectual superiority is a bad one.

You should understand considering that (based off of data in the past year or so) 99.9% of the people that one encountered are either inferior by knowledge or intellect, claiming they "know" or "understand" stuff whilst propagating completely flawed knowledge.

Quote from: Ibian on June 15, 2017, 03:13:57 PM

If you don't wanna explain what you mean it's better not to.

I explained it to you with a rather lengthy paragraph. You've just dismissed it and continued posting the same nonsense.

Quote from: Lauda on June 15, 2017, 02:54:33 PM

No reasonable amount, which would not fully centralized Bitcoin, is enough. Increasing the block size != improving scalability. Segwit -> Schnorr + signature aggregation are a very nice step. For those that do not know, and I'm sure ImI is part of those, the latter requires 1 signature for inputs from the same address. This means that TXs pulling out a lot of inputs from the same one would be very small in size in comparison to today. The bonus side effect of this improvement is not only capacity, but also the incentive to consolidate UTXO. Block size increases make sense, to a certain degree. However, kicking the can that way does nothing but set precedence for "weak/lazy scaling" and centralization. Let's have actual improvements, like those mentions and Weak blocks, before we do this?

Scaling does not just mean more throughput. Adding more throughput, such as increasing the block size, is absolutely not equal to "improving scalability". An example of improving scalability would be enabling more throughput by using the same amount of resources. Signature aggregation, as described above, would be an example of such. Another way of imporving scalability is reducing resource cost, which is what Segwit does in part with it's sighash (trying to scale down the quadratic validation time to linear, which would also mitigate the DoS attack vector of a raw block size increase). There are also some other examples, but this should give you a general idea.

I am absolutely positive that we would have been somewhere above $5k, and pretty stable, had Segwit activated in January or February.

What you are talking about is efficiency. Increasing the network capacity is far more relevant than the precise mechanism to achieve it. You don't simply get to pretend that one definition of a word you keep using, and arguably using wrongly, is invalid.