Not yet. XMR is too far "below the radar" at this point; however a significant move in the XMR price say after 0.9 is out combined with a blow-up on the Bitcoin side and all bets are off.

Edit: XMR does not have a blocksize issue. It is the main reason I invested in XMR in the first place.

Because I have followed this issue since early 2012, and I have observed the quality of the debate get a lot worse during since then.

Price will have to rise until there are sellers willing to sell. My take is that what is holding Monero at these prices is a host of "unfinished business" starting of course with the 0.9 release. What is potentially very dangerous for the shorts at these prices is that this "unfinished business" is slowly being addressed.

Then there is of course the whole blocksize debate in Bitcoin. The degree of denial in the Bitcoin community about this is just mind boggling.

Well I guess we can wait for Bitcoin to start to fail and then act.

My preference is for market based blocksize adaptive limits that will allow Bitcoin to scale with technological change. There are alt-coins that today have this kind of dynamic blocksize in place. In the interim there is a very good case to move to 8 MB blocks in 2016 just based on the argument that from a de-centralization / centralization prespective this is equivalent to 1 MB in 2010.

See you in the alt-coin section,

Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?

Actually a 1 MB blocksize limit ensures centralization because it forces the bulk of the transactions into centralized ledgers such as those kept by banks, credit cards companies. payment processors etc.

Running the Bitcoin client on a 10 year old feature phone or maybe even using a tabulating machine, punched cards and a telegraph line may be feasible but entirely pointless. Ok I jest. After all it was possible even in 1905 to send 1 MB of data over the telegraph network for a price. The price was just within the budget of JP Morgan. So why not reduce the blocksize to a few bytes since that was affordable for most people to send via the telegraph network back in 1905.

The reality is that technology does not stand still. In the future this debate will sound as crazy as my examples above.

No. I am in favor of a de-centralized crypto-currency with mass adoption. It will be driven by individuals storing petabytes or more of data in the future just as they store gigabytes of data today. What I do know is that Bitcoin with a 1 MB blocksize limit will not be it.

There is a very significant historical lesson here. Centralized transaction ledgers (such as credit cards) only became possible on a large scale when technology caused the cost of keeping the ledger to fall by many orders of magnitude. The same is true of de-centralized transaction ledgers such as Bitcoin. They will also become possible on a large scale as the cost of keeping the ledger continues to fall.

My take is that a true Bitcoin like de-centralized transaction ledger with at least the transaction volume of the current VISA network is only a matter to time. The only question is will this ledger be Bitcoin or some other cryptocurrency. In many ways Bitcoin runs the risk of becoming the Diner's Club of cryptocurrency for many of the same reasons. This is the fate of the first mover. Some of us wish to give Bitcoin the chance of becoming the VISA of cryptocurrency

Scaling Bitcoin today is as relevant as scaling credit cards was back in the 1950's. http://newnumismatics.weebly.com/uploads/4/1/3/2/41323823/4474661.jpg?331 Does anyone really believe that the current transaction volume of the VISA network could happen with the punched card technology of the 1950s? Yet there are those that wish to cripple Bitcoin to the technology of today.

This 4GB of data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#/media/File:IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg

I understand that storing 4 GB of data in 2015 does not require a warehouse full of punched cards and the budget of a superpower as it did in 1959.

Edit: Blocksize is the solution to scale unless of course you plan to store the blockchain using IBM punched cards at 80 bytes per card.

I asked: What is your solution for Bitcoin to scale? I did not ask: What is not your solution for Bitcoin to scale?. There is a big difference.

This ignores the fact that during a economic crisis a USB flash drive is a way more cost effective way to store 4 GB of data than a warehouse full of punched cards.

Edit: It is still possibe to send a telegram; however this costs a lot more than sending an email.

If Jamie Dimon has even the faintest understanding of the transaction capability of Bitcoin with its 1 MB blocksize limit I doubt very much he would consider investing in Bitcoin.

So what is your solution for Bitcoin to scale?

As far as I see it Gavin is desperatly trying to save Bitcoin.

Coinbase pushing for a larger blocksize should be a wake up call to the small block crowd given that Coinbase's business strategy is to a large part to encourage off blockchain Bitcoin transactions.

I have been following this debate for well over three years now and the simple reality is that Bitcoin will either scale to meet transaction demand or simply die. There are alts with adaptive blocksize limits waiting in the wings. Focusing on Bitcoin XT ignores the fact that Bitcoin XT, has a fair amount of baggage that is unrelated to the blocksize issue. That being said Gavin's proposal to increase the blocksize to 8 GB over a period of 20 years is way ahead of any of the other proposals that have proposed. One can simply take the Bitcoin XT blocksize proposal without the "extra baggage". 

22. Bd5