Okay, community voices a problem, miners can solve the problem, as simple as it gets. So what the fuck are you talking about consensus here? And whose consensus miners need, that of developers or that of community after all? Make up you mind finally. If it is community, then you can't possibly say something like "community voices a problem" since that essentially means they are giving miners their consent to fork Bitcoin while the latter don't do anything. Or should I thus conclude that this is not what miners actually want?

And they in fact don't want to solve the problem voiced by community?

They understand everything

And they are not really going to create any government backed coprocoin. These are just words, empty words, which lost their meaning long ago. Mark Twain said it over 100 years ago that you shouldn't believe anything of what you hear (and half of what you see). The Russian economy is stagnating at best now (even according to official reports), and Putin's regime (or should I rather say clique?) consisting mostly of oligarchs should get themselves busy with solving more mundane issues that the country is going to face in the nearest future (and is already facing). The best they can do is just go away

This is something I am worried about, if this continues and there is no suitable direction, the bitcoin may be left behind, and the other altcoin throne. Currently, bitcoin is in the development process, it should not get into any trouble. Conversely, altcoin is growing so quickly, it surprised me.

Why are you laying yourself out to evade addressing the dilemma I pointed out?

You can call that coin an altcoin or whatever, but this doesn't change anything. If things are as bad in respect to blocksizes as miners are claiming them to be (not actually miners but some dudes here that are pretending that they are), then, as I said, forking Bitcoin (making an altcoin, in your speak) would be inevitable, and it would be welcomed by virtually anyone (since the situation was dire and no longer tolerable or acceptable). If it is in fact "evitable", then the miners are lying, or the dudes who are telling that the miners "have been screaming for years about the blocksize increase" are lying. So who is lying here?

25hashcoin probably IS franky1. That guy (or service/business) has many alt accounts to try and influence people here.

It's sad that so many bitcoiners are dumb enough to support B(F)U Chinacoin.

Come August 1, franky's going to need to find a new line of work. :-)

Then you should understand what it comes down to

If you fail somehow, I can help. It pretty much means that those miners allegedly screaming about larger blocks for so many years are outright liars. If there were real necessity in larger blocks (as Larger Blocks advocates seem to claim), forking Bitcoin would be an inevitable outcome greeted and welcomed by virtually everyone (and his fucking dog). But given that miners are not going to fork Bitcoin any time soon, it proves as well that they are up to something else, something different from what they are so vocal about

Some guy said something!!!! OMG, this must be huge!!!?  
 

Now try to address the dilemma I stated

If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't just hard fork Bitcoin (given their mining monopoly)?

Until a few months ago, no one talked about satoshis per byte. For years now transactions have been so cheap that you could have addresses with lots of tiny inputs, and it would still cost only 0.0001 or 0.00005 BTC to send. Since I was just a user sitting behind the driving wheel, clueless as to what an alternator or a distributor was, I paid absolutely no attention to the size amounts coming into addresses. Now suddenly, the truth comes forward, and it can now cost tens of dollars to move out smallish amount of bitcoin in an address. It can also cost a still reasonable amount, if you only have one input in an address that you're  spending.

Anyway, now we all know better, Satoshis/byte is a real world thing now, and smallish amounts of BTC will be sent less and less frequently, sending bitcoin on chain will not be for tiny amounts anymore, fees will be more reasonable once this turnover of small inputs finishes, and we'll all adjust our usage habits.

here is one example - not perfect. but think about it
imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. (reasonable expectation)
where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise..
obviously those wanting to spend many times a day can benefit from LN

which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding/day trading every 1-10 minutes)

so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor(like the old one was) but about reducing respend spam and bloat.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending again for an average of 24 hours.(thats what CLTV does) to win lower fee

and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae with was more about the value of the tx


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain ($0.01).
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more ($0.44)
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price($1.44)
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending EVERY BLOCK you pay the ultimate price($63.72)

note this is not perfect. but think about it

And that most likely will be Litecoin

Regarding the noise raised by the OP, I have heard many people claiming that miners have been screaming for years about the blocksize increase. If it is really so (I don't know, but let's assume that) and the blocksize increase was as required as they have been screaming, what prevented them from introducing this increase on their own? Okay, some dudes would readily say that they want consensus but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact such an urgent feature as the miners are pretending it ti be?

I have talked with one developer and he can incorporate a whole exchange into a single chat bot. You will tell the bot whether you want to buy or sell btc and then will ask how would like to pay like Bank, Webmoney etc and you pay right away on it. There will be a escrow feature as well.

Bitcoin chat bot is not that easy to make because it is very complicated and a chat bot will help the people who are in need and even a person doesn't have the knowledge to help all the kind of problems that we are currently facing now so i think it is just a complicated project to make and it will take a lot of effort before you done that well.