Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 10:03:25 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on October 04, 2017, 08:51:06 PM

empirical evidence pretty much shows that the 2x part of segwit2x is not really justified

Bullshit.

It's not bullshit. Show some evidence if you think that there is some kind of problem? We are talking about spam attacks, and when there are no spam attacks we have all kinds of extras space and low fees and fast transaction times.

So... you can say "bullshit" all you want, when the fact of the matter is that you large blocker nutjobs are the ones who do not have evidence to justify that any change in the blocksize limit is actually needed now or in the near future.

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 10:03:25 PM

The vision is the entire world employing Bitcoin. How are we going to get there?

We get there like we have been getting there, with incremental changes and improvements and development and yet continuing to grow, including segwit and lightning network in the future.. and ongoing developments and ongoing adoption.. Has been good and continues to be good, except for the multiple disgruntled attackers that have to be fended off on an ongoing basis with their misinformation and FUD spreading.

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 10:03:25 PM

Nobody can spend Bitcoin if they don't already have Bitcoin. Have you thought about the limit of adoption even assuming the desire was there? How long will it take to onboard the world?

We do not go from .1% of the world adoption to 100% world adoption, there is a transition period, so we are a long fucking way from 100% anytime in the near future... it is called incremental adoption... even if it seems like exponential, it is not going to happen in the next few years, if that is what you are thinking.

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 10:03:25 PM

Currently it would take over 30 years to send each person on earth a single Bitcoin transaction. Think about that.

I doubt that it is worthy of very much thought, and I doubt that the facts are even accurate... especially once we et a bit more lightning network tools into place...

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 10:03:25 PM

Lightning does nothing to alleviate that.
Segwit does nothing to alleviate that.
Schnorr sigs does nothing to alleviate that.

Your saying it does not make it true, either.

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 10:03:25 PM

The only metric that matters in this is transaction throughput - pure and simple. To a first order approximation (i.e. with already minimal-size transactions), this is directly and linearly proportional to block size.

Yeah, you talk in a lot of hypotheticals rather than looking at the actual transaction on the blockchain.

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 10:03:25 PM

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that can possibly get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

Yes. Assume a problem that does not exist, apart from the ongoing spam attacks.

Sure some day down the road we might need to increase the blockchain limit size... does not seem to be an emergency except to figure out ways to battle various ongoing spam attacks, which are likely going to continue, since B-cash is appearing to becoming more and more of a dud and it is likely not worthwhile to direct mining power towards the bcash chain, so those guys want to spend their mining power to attempt to spam bitcoin instead... go figure. Roll Eyes