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.

And you believe Jihan is not stalling blocksize? He already dropped BU and those r/btc people all felt for his crap that Segwit is cancer, bad etc. And now he's working on a different version of Segwit..lol

Jihan's business model is focused on milking out those high fee's as much as possible.

Sichuan is now in wet season and the electricity price will only cost 50% of that of in dry season.

China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the top economic planning agency, Thursday announced a rise in the price of electricity for non-residential use by 2.8 fen ($0.4 cents) per kWh on average nationwide, as of Friday.

and for commercial use 79 fen per kWh, according to Beijing Electric Power Corporation.

horseshit, it results in jihad mining empty blocks and congestion in transactions and higher fees. And bigger blocks won't solve it

I'm glad Jeff opened that discussion. Looks like Jeff is trying to reassure everyone that asicboost will be disabled, but he's kinda dancing around the issue and gmaxwell (judging from his most recent comment) is not yet convinced.

my take is that DCG got fed up with blockstream and forced the compromise..maybe bitcoin still gets SW but it also gets HF and upgrade not authored by Core.  

That's Bitcoin Unlimited. Due to the massive incompetence of the BU developers and frequent failures in their software, they have started renaming the listing from BU to emergent consensus (e.g. on coin.dance).

The cancer of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

You have a point, but I don't think fees are the primary purpose right now as block rewards are still much better than the fees and the fees usually just goes to the pools. Though probably if they keep this up, when we have had enough halvings then the rewards will be lower then the fees then they will surely forget about scaling.