Indeed, they will not. But on the other side, as long as this question remains unsolved, bitcoin appears very unstable from the outside, and this is prohibiting people from starting to use it.

And new users will stop arriving because transaction fees are too high, then greedy users only waiting for a price increase will leave, then miners will get less money because of transactions getting scarce, then they'll raise transaction fees again, then more people will leave and transactions will get even more scarce, etc etc. Miners will benefit for a time but after a while bitcoin will just die. That's why it's such an important issue and that's why so many people are trying to come up with solutions to it.

In the case of Apple for example, scarcity made you want to buy a high-class product because of its artificial scarcity.
Here it will be the opposite: you don't want to pay more to see your transaction being transmitted just as it used to be for lower fees in the past, do you? Well, no one does. People will leave if fees increase.
Well I mean I'm not completely against higher fees, because anyway, right now they're ridiculously low, and anyway in the future, when block rewards will be counted in satoshis, fees will have to increase at least a little. But here we're talking about the dissuasive kind of high fees.

It's not that simple. There are other alternatives. Maybe you'll want to have a look at BlockStream and the sidechains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pyVvq-vrrM

What do you mean, here? What's the connection between companies purposely not providing enough products for everyone, thus creating demand and price raises, and the blocksize being limited to 1Mb? There's no added scarcity for bitcoin with 1Mb blocks.

It might be me, and I'm sorry if it's the case, but your reasoning doesn't make any sense to me.

It's HaoBTC's COO but yeah he only claimed to speak for himself and not in the name of the company. He claims that he wants to stick with core and offers solutions to the problems we're facing now: (1) let small transactions happen offchain and only big transactions happen onchain, and (2) increase fees.
Globally this article doesn't offer much new stuff. All this was already known. It's just that of course people don't want to see any increase in fees  

Also, he's not "the Chinese miners" but just one Chinese mining company's COO expressing a personal opinion. I hope Aaron van Wirdum didn't use at as a source when claiming that "Chinese miners" were sticking with Core, because in this case it means shit.

Avec le forking qui arrive là je sais pas quand elle va s'arrêter, cette baisse-ci. Pas sûr d'avoir envie d'acheter maintenant, moi. J'ai rien revendu non plus, d'un autre côté. Mais je n'acheterai pas au dessus de $250-$300 tant que la question du forking ne sera pas ou bien résolue ou bien reportée à nouveau.

Tu sais, tu n'es pas obligé de cliquer sur "post" après chaque phrase. Tes 5 posts au dessus, là, ils auraient été beaucoup plus lisibles pour nous si tu les avais regroupés en un seul. Merci.

Ce que Meuh veut dire c'est que bitcoin n'est pas responsable du blanchiment d'argent mais que ce papier a méchamment l'air de lui rejetter la faute, avec une grosse image "bitcoin" au centre de l'article, alors qu'il y avait aussi du cash et des voitures de luxe impliquées mais que cash comme voiture de luxe ne constituent qu'une phrase de l'article, là où bitcoin c'est vraiment le démon à abattre.

Je ne pense pas que ce topic puisse être supprimé juste pour ça. D'ailleurs c'est pas du tout contraire à l'esprit du forum d'acheter de la réputation. Il est bien possible d'acheter des comptes bitcointalk ici aussi, et on les paye en fonction de leur activité mais aussi de leur réputation.

Mais oui, on se doute de ce que les nouveaux acheteurs font avec cette réputation. Donc en effet, proute, Perlinpinpin  

Enfin de toute façon il l'aura, son compte, s'il continue à chercher...
Et nous on va juste devoir continuer à nous montrer paranos. Rien ne va changer en fait 

Et pendant ce temps la rémunération de Jamie Dimon augmente de 35% sur le dos des actionnaires.

En fait bitcoin sera jamais capable de "eat his lunch" parce que de toute façon le mec a déjà des couilles en or (ou en argent, comme Warren Buffet, c'est selon)  

What's your source?

Haha. This is great  

Thing is, how do normal people react when they see that? isvicre is not the only one who doesn't know who Jamie Dimon is, even with his picture, and when they see, "bitcoin will eat your lunch", I'm not sure that they won't think that bitcoin is quite uncool to eat other people's (which might include their own) lunch :-/

Un nom un peu comme ça : 5K7qP3eq7kTNQWaVAK27oiqM16TdNyRj4JzVeRMd5xVVdaZ1eHT ? 

Most of the positive article was more about how the blockchain was a revolutionary technology than about how bitcoin itself was going to change the world (this currency that gained notoriety because of criminals and hackers and whose price falls by 25% from time to time, y'know). I can't see much positive stuff about bitcoin even in the first article. Even when he writes: "Yet, in 2015, it gained acceptance by retailers such as Overstock.com" he doesn't necessarily have to agree that bitcoin is becoming accepted for a reason. Maybe he just didn't agree with bitcoin from the start.
... Or he was trying to manipulate the price because he actually is invested in bitcoin and wanted to buy cheap coins... but not everyone can be such a successful crook as Mike Hearn and apparently his article didn't change anything (or if it did, it actually had the opposite impact of what was expected ).

People who disagree with you aren't necessarily stupid, guys :-/
Especially when talking about Mike Hearn. This guy is smarter than at least 90% of the members this board, for sure.

Sorry but
if 1 BTC = 1.000.000 USD
then 1 SAT = 0.01 USD
therefore if 1 PIZ* = 10.000 SAT
then 1 PIZ = 100 USD

In which country (or which year in the future  ) do you live, for thinking that $100 is cheap for a pizza? 

*PIZ = one unit of pizza.

10,000 bits would be closer to reality though.
10,000 satoshis is $0.04 right now. No pizza could ever be sold for that price (buy 1 get 200 free promotional discounts notwithstanding). But 10,000 bits that's $4. That's closer to the price for a cheap, small pizza, where I live. And yes, I'd buy it provided that it's cheaper to buy it with bitcoins then fiat (which is actually the opposite of Laszlo back then: the guy offered more in BTC than what he'd have to pay in fiat).

OP probably edited their post without editing its title after noticing that the problem was actually coming from them (i.e. when they froze their account by mistake).

I agree that OP should change the title of this thread as soon as possible. This is very misleading. Besides it could be taken as calumny, which is punishable by law if bitfinex wants to resort to it.

Yeah I agree with the others. Everyone in the community is either a trader, either a currency investor, either a technology investor, either someone who wants to protect their money from inflation. Some of us are even all four combined. Which means that we indeed are greedy. A nice part of the world is greedy. Not all of it though. But the bitcoin community is full of greedy people. That's a fact.
Now yes, a nice cut of the bitcoin community doesn't look smart to me either. Sometimes I wonder if it's the same in Wall Street. I mean, yeah it would seem natural that anyone greedy would like to try investing and/or trading, regardless of their mental capabilities.

So yeah, this Vivek Wadhwa is not completely wrong. I mean, yes, we're all greedy, that's one thing, and there also are dumbasses in our greedy ranks. Where he's wrong is when he assumes that any bitcoin loyalist must necessarily be a dumbass. Price manipulation again, as someone said earlier? Maybe.

Pourquoi prendre de l'or juste à ce moment-là et pas maintenant (quoi qu'en fait ta phrase ne dit pas que tu n'as pas d'or maintenant) ? Mais je veux dire, surtout, pourquoi abandonner bitcoin après qu'il sera devenu stable pour partir vers le full-or ? Parce que je ne sais pas quand tu as commencé à acheter des bitcoins mais si ton prix de reviens est de plus de $200, grosso-modo, pour que tu deviennes riche avec bitcoin, il va falloir une sacrée explosion du prix, ce qui signifie une sacrée démocratisation de bitcoin, ce qui signifie une stabilité bien plus difficileà ébranler que celle de maintenant (et probablement proche de celle de l'or).

So it wasn't you. But there was one guy. And now they're 9
This blog post buy Mike Hearn is worse then the plague.

Anyway, there's no criticism here as to the reasons why that first guy said they didn't believe in bitcoin. They might have had very good reasons, which I think is not the case of the remaining 8 people who joined their ranks