It is orphaned because it violates the rules of the majority of the network instead of because of a race condition, but the consequences are the same.  Namely, the miner loses out on the subsidy + fees and any transactions not already included in a block are put back in the mempool. Nobody gets hurt except the miner who found the block.

The reason for the blocksize limit is that at the time it was implemented, bitcoins were worthless and blocks were easy to generate with a CPU.  Anyone could build huge blocks for no cost.  The blocksize limit was added as an antispam measure since it was basically free to spam.

Today, if you want to build a big block, you risk that the rest of the network will reject it.  If that happens, your block is orphaned and you lose the block reward (subsidy + fees).  In order to spam a large block, you have to take the risk that your block will be orphaned, costing you about $11,250 (12.5 btc/block * $900 / btc).  Not to mention, that larger blocks take longer to propagate than smaller blocks, so in a race condition, the smaller block will always win and the larger block will be orphaned.

Even at the time the blocksize was introduced, Satoshi himself intended for it to be increased at a later date (via a hard fork):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

What problems does segwit solve?

Today, you can already drop the signatures from your storage layer after validating them if you want to.

Even if there are some advantages to segwit, implementing it as a soft fork is dangerous.  It lets old clients think they are fully validating when they aren't.  If you are going to require 95%, you might as well hard fork and force outdated clients off the network.  Of course, the first time an old client mines a block that spends a segwit transaction under the old definition of the anyone can spend opcode you'll have a hard fork anyway (which will again just be an orphaned block since the segwit network will easily outpace the non-segwit network).

How about we do, since this is the root of my measure of proportion?  From my standpoint, you smeared BU based on a misunderstanding of the situation.  Obviously, you have some additional beef with the project that led you to make negative assumptions.  Maybe if you aired it, I could better understand your position.

Miners already have the power to change blocksize by recompiling the code.  All BU does is remove that artificial barrier and make it clear that blocksize is a parameter that the market will decide on, not some cabal of self-anointed developers.

And with 3 transactions per second and 7 billion people on earth, every person can make 1 transaction every 74 years.  You'd better plan ahead.

Maybe we should restrict it to just the 300 million people in the US.  If we do that, we can each make 1 transaction every 3 years.

It is just another orphaned block.  There is an average of one every other day: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?daysAverageString=7

Someone took a risk and set their blocksize larger than 1mb.  It was a foolish thing to do with the current state of the blocksize debate, but it only hurt the miner who chose that setting.  If that someone was running a pool, their users also lost out.  Said users will likely find a different pool if this pool doesn't fix their settings.

How you go from this situation to railing about "bullshit coming out of the BU camp" just unveils your ignorance of how things work.  It is foolish to fight something you don't understand.

Hey look, I can say whatever the fuck I want too.... of course both of our posts will probably be deleted for being off topic before the day is up.

As a transactional currency, it has no chance unless we can reach consensus on a scaling path.  3 transactions per second is a joke.

As an investment, all we need is for the SEC to get out of the way and allow ETFs and options on those ETFs.  That will give bitcoin the liquidity it needs to be taken seriously by the people who have enough capital to take us to the next order of magnitude.  It will also make bitcoin available as an investment vehicle to anyone with a brokerage account or self directed IRA.

If the BU blocks where orphaned, then the transactions they contained were either included in the competing fork that one out, or they got put back into the mempool and made it into later blocks.  No transactions would have been lost.  Of course, why learn how transaction processing works before you go spout off about the irresponsibility of one of the groups actually working to increase transaction throughput.

As long as I continue to have a well paying job and no need to cash out I can't help but get excited about having longer to accumulate.

820 -> 920 -> 890 is a crash?

Please... crash some more.

Payload delivered... time for this:

Thank you for your pedantic lesson on market mechanics.  Can we get back to posting rockets and trains now?

Shakeout over, resume the rally .

(Disclaimer: I am indicating the sentiment behind this move... I'm not claiming we are going straight up from here)

For price to move up, there has to be more buyers at the current price than sellers.

And people aren't selling.

Down (hourly), then up (daily).

It is perfectly possible to cover their expenses with fees on "bitcoin withdrawals, as well as GBP deposits and withdrawals".  0 fees is a perfect environment for liquidity providing trading bots.  However a maker-taker fee structure that is free for makers can accomplish the same thing while preventing wash trades.

In 2013 the rally happened much more quickly.  There was only a very short amount of time over $1000.  We held above it much longer this time, so more bitcoins changed hands above $1000.