Bitcoin was never really a currency, and won't become one until it becomes stable. At the moment we have the destructive blocksize increase issue, and there are a number of other major possible changes looming for the future. There is the reduction in block generation time, which will have to happen in the not too distant future if multiple confirmations are required to ensure that a transaction is on a valid blockchin. The other interesting possibility is an increase in the number of coins that are allowed to be created. Someone will try to fork for this change because it represents such a massive capital gain possibility.

Well based on previous actions, there will be a hard fork, and the limit will be raised to 50 million. Blocksize will be increased so that people can include the lord's prayer in their transactions.

What's the average size of a transaction at the moment? Are the blocks being pumped up?

Not quite a good analogy. Bitcoin was the horse and buggy I agree, but why switch to a stagecoach with eight horses, when others are using motorcycles and cars.

I think it is a shame that segwit seems to have got bundled in with bigger blocks. Segwit is great, but bigger blocks are a ball and chain for Bitcoin.

If transaction fees increase and squeeze out the smaller transactions, then confirmation times will become more important. If block generation times are not reduced, then users will switch to more efficient transfer systems. This will cause a drop in the value of Bitcoin, and make mining even less profitable.

It's a massive gamble, and one that I am considering as well. There is too much instablity at the moment, and I believe that a blocksize increase is the wrong way to go, and it will leave Bitcoin vulnerable to other currencies with faster confirmation times. If Bitcoin stays with an average time of 30 minutes for 2 confirmations, then it isn't going to stay as the primary store of wealth in my opinion.

Segwit offers many advantages, and is not just about a blocksize alternative imho.
Larger blocks are a bad thing for Bitcoin, and will stop it becoming the major crypto in the future. Who wants great lumbering juggernauts, that are being overtaken by the fastwer traffic.

I'll hold off updating my core node in the hope that sense prevails, and we can keep blocks at 1Mb maximum.

I've just picked up the domain name - Crypto Bounty.com , and I believe it was a crypto gambling site. I plan to use it as an information site about crypto ICOs , domain name sales and related topics. Which board would be the best one for stating the change of ownership. The gambling market place seems to be the obvious one, but should it be a more general statement?

This domin name has now been sold.

You can buy names through the Name Silo market place, and pay with Bitcoins. I sell domain names for Bitcoin as well.
If you mean register a domain name, then Name Silo also takes Bitcoin as payment for registration fees. You can also get a $1 off your first order if you use the promotion code HOTNAMES. I've got about 300 names with them, and I'm moving more to them over the next few months.

If you want to use my affiliate link, it is -
https://www.namesilo.com/pricing.php?rid=03fa233dx

That will take you to the pricing page. - .com transfers are $8.39, and that includes free privacy.

So if I pay cash for Bitcoins, and do the transaction over the free WiFi in McDonalds, how are they going to check on that?
If I buy them from a stranger, then the trail dies with me.

I gather the good thing about Bitcoin cash is that it proves 2 minute block generation times are viable.

Does this mean that my node is storing both blockchains in my files?

I told you so.

It's transaction time that is important not blocksize.

You guys knew I would make this post.

Government backing - well somebody had to say it.

Where do you stop if you start adding them. Some years ago, I had a whole website dedicated to emojis of dancing bananas.

Host them yourself, and you can see how many views your post gets.

I'm trying to move away from Google and Windows. They are both significant globalist organisations, and against the underlying philosophy of Bitcoin. Their data harvesting and forced advertising make computing insecure and inefficient if you have a less than optimum setup. Some Linux variants seem to be easy to use these days, and are much more efficient. It also means that you won't be supporting an organisation that is trying to enforce mandatory poisoning of healthy babies through vaccination.

I've got quite a library of their free books. Raspberry Pi, Kali Linux and Wireshark are my current interests.

I'll try to read the book later and comment. I posted it before reading the book, because the free offer only lasts for a day, and half of it had gone by the time I spotted the offer.

https://www.packtpub.com/packt/offers/free-learning

I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but their books are usually pretty good. The offer is valid for about 14 hours from the time of this post.

Please note - I have no cennectiion with the site or the book itself.

Small blocks and slow transactions are not the same thing. Doubling block size, but not waiting until they are full before generating them, is wasteful, and doesn't really help. What is needed is faster transaction processing, and with a 10 minute average block generation time, it can never be fast. Eventually block generation will have to be below one minute in my opinion. Why don't we try to move towards it now. Waiting a few years means that blocksize will have to be reduced, and that will introduce more complications.