Nothing wrong with that.  Bitcoin is in an interim stage of development, and we should not be expecting a 6 billion dollar market cap system to compete on the same level as various centralized credit card and other centralized payment systems (in terms of speed).. in these early and expansive days of bitcoin and its various systems.  


And, even so, these days, it seems that bitcoin is allowing a lot of value transfer, control and storage of value in ways that would be extremely expensive and even slow for final confirmation in many instances with traditional payment systems.

A couple of weeks ago, I sent 80 bitcoins (price at the time $416  - therefore $33,280), and it took about 7 minutes to be confirmed, and I was able to use the money in less than 30 minutes.  I did not do anything special on that occasion, and the standard fee was .000187 BTC  (almost $.08).   Personally, I find that transaction to be quite amazing in comparison to any other payment system (and largely decentralized in this circumstance).  

My earlier March tests of three transactions (while the blocks were supposedly full) that took 75 minutes, and nearly 10 hours for the other two, were fairly small level transactions (a little more than $1), and those transaction times and fees were acceptable, as well, yet would depend on use case, whether faster confirmation would be preferred or lower fees would be expected...

Bitcoin is not anywhere near broken, and a lot of further innovations are in the soon-to-be implemented pipeline... this year, and maybe more next year.   So, you FUCD spreaders seem to becoming less and less persuasive with your lame assertions of "emergency" and or to make supposed "brokenness of bitcoin" cries.

Yes, that is a big "IF".  

My transactions are not taking four days but tend to show up immediately and usually take less than an hour.  In early March, while the blocks were supposedly full, I sent out three transactions with varying fees, and the one with the highest fees (I recall it was $.04) took about 75 minutes to complete, and the two with the low to no fees ($.01 and $.001 respectively) took close to 10 hours to complete.

In other words, you are in a fantasy world, Mr. Aztec, and transactions do not appear to be taking anywhere near 4 days to complete, even when blocks are at their fullest...  and including some small token fees seems to help speed up transaction confirmations.
 

It seems that you, Mr. Aztec, have some difficulties with reading comprehension.   


In my earlier comment, I conceded that I had not recognized the difference from median and mean in the referred to charts; however, I did not concede that there was any kind of meaningful blockchain fullness problem. 

I also conceded that looking at median blocksize information could potentially allow for various additional arguments regarding blocksize fullness, that may not be as meaningful by using mean blocksize information. 

None of my concessions imply that there is actually in existence convincing information concerning the extent to which some posters tend to argue about "emergency" blockchain fullness issues that would require immediate action beyond various currently ongoing seg wit considerations and later on potential blocksize limit increases that are being considered for sometime after the implementation of seg wit, such as potential blocksize limit increase considerations described in the HongKong agreement.

That image is pretty morbid....


Since You edited out the image... I took it out, too..

There's nothing wrong with considering some anecdotal evidence (especially when considering personal experiences, and whether personal experiences are either representative, aberrational or something more mixed).  There have been a lot of strong claims coming, so accordingly, I believe that looking at various charts (especially if we are able to verify accuracy - or to have some trust in accuracy) can also give some ideas about the potential strengths/weaknesses of various claims.

Hahahahahaha


I will admit that I had a brain fart, and for a moment, I was considering mean and median as the same. 

So, O.k.  I will agree that reviewing information about the median could be helpful to various analysis regarding whether there are block full problems and transaction time problems that are resulting from block fullness, and blockchain.info charts are providing the mean for blocksize, but so far, seem to not be providing the median.  At least, I have not found it, so far.

Thank you for providing more information about possible sources to support some of the arguments that you had been making (regarding blocksizes being full).

Some of the data on that site make little sense to me, however.  I don't really understand how they are calculating average blocksize as compared with median blocksize, and why there would be a difference between those two concepts (except through their definition of such).

I believe that some of our valid criticism of blockchain.info has been that blockchain.info does not seem to be allowing for more granular analysis of blocksize, transaction fees and confirmation times, and so far, I cannot recognize that the various graphs of your provided site having more granular analysis.

Actually, if there were a way to break down into 4, 6 or 12 hour intervals would cause some additional ability to analyze whether there are periods in which transactions are taking longer to go through...   Possibly, at some point, these kind of time issues will no longer be issues, because at this point, I personally can understand that sometimes it may take an hour to confirm paid transactions and it could take half a day to confirm low or no fee transactions... 
 

     


Mr. Aztec has both things going for him....

He is both seeking attention and retarded, yet once in a while entertaining.   

See more at  gimpyaztec.com   

Yes... you seem to be correct this time that there has been a lot of bullshit discussions regarding scaling non-issues for about 11 months that have seemed to materialize into a lot of loud voices and no real or meaningful evidence of any actual or material problem. 

Nonetheless, if we had been paying attention, we have seen quite a large amount of whining about various fantasy scaling issues, and likely the whining about the non-existent problem is not done, yet.


Regarding actual upcoming implementations of changes to the bitcoin protocol, there seem to be several actual implementations in the works, and there is no real need for me to repeat such, here. 

Whether any or all of the implementations will actually happen or not will be found out in the coming months.. and really there should be no real doubt that several changes will actually go live.  From what I understand seg wit is in testnet.. and may be getting close to being activated on the blockchain protocol in the coming month or two...   Furthermore, it sounds pretty exciting regarding some of the innovative possibilities coming with seg wit that seem to address some of the concerns of a lot of whiners including transaction speed and transaction volume, and then to be able to witness the actual going live of seg wit and some other upcoming changes should be exciting, as well.

What scaling problem?    There's no scaling problem..


So far, all I've seen are a bunch of whiners about some kind of scaling problem,  and so far, I have yet to see any actual scaling problem.

Funny thing about Mr. Aztec.  He she it.. seems to have a very narrow set of talking points.  Yes, we understand that there may well be over consumption of fluoride and aluminum, but I doubt that simplified version of the world adequately explains why there is a lot of illogical and irrational behaviors, that others may categorize as dumb.

Take your recent string of posts around your coinbase issue, for example.  You spent at least half a day describing very inadequate conspiracy theories, and even sought help through this thread (which doesn't really seem to be very smart, or a very good use of time), and yet, even though I attempted to assist you by suggesting that you research into the matter.  Instead of engaging in some small amounts of research, you recognized my attempts to assist you as inadequately addressing your vaguely specified claims... which I would call pretty dumb... and then thereafter, you were fairly easily able to research and find the answer to your inane and stupid-ass conspiracy-laden set of questions... which seems pretty dumb, in the whole scheme of things.  

You can read more about this and other stupid-ass lame stories and theories at dumbztec.miner.com.  
 

I thought that you sold, yesterday, or this morning?


 

What does that linked video have to do with anything?

Maybe you made a mistake, but you should realize that your above comment "and started laying down the law" is just stupid talk?


We should attempt to recall that bitcoin is decentralized, which means that no one is in charge, and accordingly, even though some persons may have more authority, credibility and persuasive powers than others, in the end, consensus is built upon a large number of "we" rather than some small number of persons.

It seems that we are going to witness a lot of interesting developments in the coming years in respect to the contributions of various alt coins and how bitcoin incorporates, plays off of them or competes with them.

I think that in the question/answer period of the following video, Andreas Antonopoulis has many very decent discussion points regarding Ethereum (at 1 hour 8 minutes), blocksize scaling debate (at 1 hour 20 minutes) and a potential hybrid conceptualization of proof of work and proof of stake (at 1 hour 38 minutes)

 
https://youtu.be/d0hxWC7sP2k

In essence, we are likely engaged in sloppy thinking if we consider winner/loser type competition when it comes to various platforms and the ability of one crypto to absorb aspects of other cryptos to become better and to better complement each other in the providing of services to the people that would not otherwise be provided to the people by traditional fiat institutions.

Your response is somewhat lost upon me.  I provided an interpretation in which the assumed facts underlying Tzupy's second linked article could be read as bullish rather than bearish, and you make some simplistic and confusing comment about my perspective.       There' s no there there, right?

Other people may be able to do it; however, you have the skills to be able to give us an update with both persuasive abilities and to clearly conform with your earlier methodology, and even maybe to improve upon it and show various weaknesses that you have since considered.


On the other hand, I understand why you may not want to contribute to such - because likely you are both too much conflicted with your investment in Monero (accordingly your interests have shifted to pumping that and attempting to get rich on some new coins that have pumping potential), and there may likely be several additional weaknesses in your methodology and flaws that may come to light, based on a true attempt to update with new information and a larger (and probably more sophisticated audience).

In essence, it is too bad that your interests have shifted because you certainly had been capable (when you were more focused on bitcoin) to be able to provide insight on this topic to a lot of us readers, including myself.

Even though you seem thrilled to find and post bearish bitcoin news, those articles could also be read as bullish... - especially the second one because in the end, there seems to be quite a bit of decentralized decision-making and investment going into bitcoin, that signifies that individuals (and small companies, and maybe even governments) will be continuing to invest in bitcoin's computing power and into securing the blockchain (as well as attempting to control some of the mining process).

Good ole competition may well cause a computing power arms race in respects to bitcoin.  Even if it seems to be wasteful, it surely shows anticipated ongoing interest.

You are exactly right, and that is a great way of describing the matter.


Further, when there is an appeal to such an authority, such as Satoshi, it seems to be a step towards futility.  They express a condition that cannot be met, and they say, "if only Satoshi would guide us, then we would know which way to go."  Makes a guy want to exclaim, in response:  "What bullshit.  Snap out of it!!!!"

Thank you.  I think that you are pretty much confirming my consideration of the matter. 

I used the term Spam to suggest that there are likely nuisance attacks on the blockchain, and I understand that frequently it can be very difficult to distinguish between spam and non-spam ... so accordingly, bitcoin's decentralized system would not upgraded to stop spam...   It will be interesting to see how seg wit plays out, and additional tools that may be employed... I continue to foresee that there will continue to exist paid transactions and non-paid transactions and a certain level of prioritization for paid transactions.  At the same time, I believe that bitcoin remains valuable, too, when it continues to allow for a certain level of (likely lower priority) free transactions.