Seems that someone does not really understand the trust system. Nobody can disallow you from leaving a certain rating.

There is no evidence to back up these ludicrous claims.

Prohibit account sales and account collateral, even simpler.

Because that's how the system works, i.e. there are no rules. There are actions that are frowned upon, and this account happened to do one of them. FYI trust is not moderated, so calling in 'high staff member' is a waste of bytes.

Copy-pasting and signature spam got you permanently banned?

It seems that ETH has a new saying: One fork a day keeps the investors away!

---

Another unintentional fork, Parity and Geth split.

Correct. Achow even created a script that automatically does tabulation now.

Indeed, but that is directly caused by votes being public. Anyone can keep track of the votes and calculate the current preferred candidates (e.g. like Foxpup did).

You're looking at the wrong sheet. The one above are votes after-elimination. This is the sheet that you should be looking at:

The letter of guarantee has been verified by me using an online tool.

Nobody is going to believe this without evidence and additional information. To expand on the post of the user above, what wallet software are you using?

There is no fix and the miners can not do anything. They are not in control of the network.

Wrong. Please educate yourself before spreading such nonsense. First of all, that "20x or more" is an arbitrary number unless a source is provided. Secondly, there are plenty of factors that need to be included (not just storage space).
1) Computational power (validation time).
2) Bandwidth.
3) Storage.
4) Orphan rates, et. al.

In addition to that, with sighash operations currently having having exponential time, there is a DOS attack vector present even at 2 MB blocks.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Illegal.

That is a fallacy. As expected by the BU folk.

That is inherently dangerous; why someone wants to believe otherwise is beyond reason.

Fact.

Random or not random it is likely that those people have no idea about the system capabilities and that turned out to be true.

Are you not aware that it has not even been 2016 blocks since Segwit signalling started? Weird.

False.

Stop creating unnecessarily large posts that have nothing to do with what is being discused. I do not think that any sane person bothers with reading them anymore.

Standard fallacy by misguided and/or delusional people.

---

The problem is far more complex that what you tend to show. There are currently two (primary) implemented proposals for on chain scaling:
1) Segwit via soft fork (Core).
2) Block size increase via hard fork (maximum 16 MB) (BU).

Okay, so the BU crowd wants to scale via a hard fork. But why this specific proposal? There are other, much more reasonable ones (e.g. the one with 17% yearly growth) that could work. I am in support of a hard fork post-Segwit, but I'm surely not going to support random node operators voting on these limits up to an absurdly large limit (16x higher than what is currently available).

The same applies for any financial system. Try doing a bank transfer without including the necessary fee and see what happens. In other words, you can't.

Wrong. 0.0002 BTC is equal to 20000 satoshis. For a transaction of the media size (226 bytes) that is still under the recommended, as it is 88.49 bytes/satoshis. That said, due to the incompetence of most users they are likely creating unnecessarily large transactions which require even bigger fees than that. A fixed fee does not guarantee anything. Including a fee of 0.0004 may be inadequate. It has to be measured in satoshis/byte.

Nonsense. Do not appeal to the extremes. I can technically ban you and put you on my blacklist for any particular reason (not that I would do this). Anyone who is on that blacklist is there for a very good reason.

Stop trolling. You can transact regularly without any problems on the Bitcoin network if you know what you're doing.

Stop using such a bad wallet. Use something like Electrum if you want a lightweight client.

TX fee: 0.0002057, TX size: 371 bytes. If we divide these numbers we come down to 55.44 satohis/byte. The current recommended is 100 satohis/byte.

Your included fee is inadequate and the output is quite small as well. You can't lose Bitcoin this way. Worst case: It does not confirm and the network drops it in a few days. What wallet are you using?

*Current usage*? Not really. The combination used in the attack is actually quite smart:
1) Use a good amount of quantity and slowly increase over the course of 2 days.
2) Use unusually large transactions with a lot of input scripts. These transactions tend to be larger e.g. 1kb. The effect that this does is that miners tend to mine more blocks with less transactions (1k or lower). As a result the ever growing backlog becomes much worse than it is.

---

You can see some dormant addresses that suddenly created over 1 thousand (multisignature transactions) over the course of 2 days each.

The second part is an assumption in addition to a generalization which may or may not be true. Anyhow, it seems that you've done your fair amount of research regarding the change required to stop this from happening. Let's see whether theymos wants to remove it sometime soon.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Read: Newbies - Read before posting. If you still have forum-related questions open a thread in Meta.

I have already noticed this. Bitmixer is not likely going to change their rates or the setup anytime soon. That is fine, good luck with the campaign and your future *leave*.