wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans

[Lauda]

There is a Chinese pool operator who wanted to bet Greg maxwell 1000 btc yesterday that segwit will not even reach 51% and Greg refused the bet.....

I have never heard of that person before. He's related to some LTC pool, but besides that I have no idea "what pool" he operated in Bitcoin. Maxwell's decision to refuse such a stupid bet shows rational thinking. Accepting such a bet gives people added monetary incentive to fight against Segwit.
Blocking Segwit and calling for on-chain scaling makes you somewhat of a hypocrite FYI.

[deisik]

So what's your point really?

You misunderstood what I was saying about the rate of change required to support onchain transaction increases, with our conversation that average recent actual blocksize directly contradicts your assertion that Chinese miners were at that time artificially sabotaging the system by choking transaction inclusion.

So how does that support your claim that everything will be tip-top in the future, when huge block sizes will be possible thanks to the expansion in network bandwidth, storage capacities, processing power, etc? While minor problems, which don't even require the tiniest part of the future technological improvements, still cannot be solved for longer than a year, today? Previous congestion of the scale we saw recently happened in the summer of 2015...

And while we are at it, it is still not proven that this transaction jam was not deliberately caused by miners themselves

[kiklo]

There is a Chinese pool operator who wanted to bet Greg maxwell 1000 btc yesterday that segwit will not even reach 51% and Greg refused the bet.....

I have never heard of that person before. He's related to some LTC pool, but besides that I have no idea "what pool" he operated in Bitcoin. Maxwell's decision to refuse such a stupid bet shows rational thinking. Accepting such a bet gives people added monetary incentive to fight against Segwit.
Blocking Segwit and calling for on-chain scaling makes you somewhat of a hypocrite FYI.

If you bothered to read the LN Network Paper, it states that OnChain BlockSize will have to be Increased.  
Reference: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

10    Block Size Increases and Consensus
If we presume that a decentralized payment network exists and one user will
make  3  blockchain  transactions  per  year  on  average,  Bitcoin  will  be  able
to  support  over  35  million  users  with  1MB  blocks  in  ideal  circumstances
(assuming 2000 transactions/MB, or 500 bytes/Tx).

This is quite limited, and an increase of the block size may be necessary to support everyone in the world using Bitcoin.
A simple increase of the block size would be a hard fork,  meaning  all  nodes  will  need  to  update  their  wallets  if  they  wish  to
participate in the network with the larger blocks.
While it may appear as though this system will mitigate the block size increases in the short term,
if it achieves global scale, it will necessitate a block size increase in the long term.

 

FYI:
1 Business may make hundreds of transactions per day , and they calculate someone only making 3 transactions per year.  
If that does not prove Core is up to some shenanigans with SegWit , then you are not paying attention.  

[jbreher]

So what's your point really?

You misunderstood what I was saying about the rate of change required to support onchain transaction increases, with our conversation that average recent actual blocksize directly contradicts your assertion that Chinese miners were at that time artificially sabotaging the system by choking transaction inclusion.

So how does that support your claim that everything will be tip-top in the future, when huge block sizes will be possible thanks to the expansion in network bandwidth, storage capacities, processing power, etc?

Well, it obviously will not be, if we do not allow it. I'd like to at least remove the artificial barriers that currently prevent this. Why is that so hard to understand?

While minor problems, which don't even require the tiniest part of the future technological improvements, still cannot be solved for longer than a year, today?

This is not a technological problem, but rather a self-imposed management problem.

And while we are at it, it is still not proven that this transaction jam was not deliberately caused by miners themselves

I struggle with trying to discern any relevance to this.

[deisik]

So what's your point really?

You misunderstood what I was saying about the rate of change required to support onchain transaction increases, with our conversation that average recent actual blocksize directly contradicts your assertion that Chinese miners were at that time artificially sabotaging the system by choking transaction inclusion.

So how does that support your claim that everything will be tip-top in the future, when huge block sizes will be possible thanks to the expansion in network bandwidth, storage capacities, processing power, etc?

Well, it obviously will not be, if we do not allow it. I'd like to at least remove the artificial barriers that currently prevent this. Why is that so hard to understand?

While minor problems, which don't even require the tiniest part of the future technological improvements, still cannot be solved for longer than a year, today?

This is not a technological problem, but rather a self-imposed management problem.

It doesn't matter. Without resolving current issues first, it doesn't make any sense to talk about future requirements and necessary technological advances to meet these requirements. It is not even so much about these issues as such as the lack of any real attempts at coming to a solution. Or, at least, to an agreement about how to resolve them in a constructive way. It is like dreaming about wedding when you have just been walked out on...

You have to deal with reality and harsh facts, and not get lost in wishful thinking and pipe-dreaming

And while we are at it, it is still not proven that this transaction jam was not deliberately caused by miners themselves

I struggle with trying to discern any relevance to this.

So why have you been constantly referring to that in your own posts if you don't see any relevance yourself?

[QuestionAuthority]

What?! us these all true? I cant believe this. What happened to the people looking or in charge for this? Are they tired or maybe they are too much busy?

Well, i dont know if i would believe this. Do you have proof about this? Then if you have, thats the that i would believe. Because i know, people behind this dont let users or people to think bad for them. Because this is not just a minor problem. 

It's not really that bad or even unexpected. Bitcoin is "private money" with no formal control structure. Innovation springs from the removal of restrictions. Many major businesses (Google, Apple etc.) have benefited from removing the normal strictures of corporate control and putting pool tables, video games and bean bags in common areas to allow their employees to just "play" if they want to. It allows a freedom of thought that fosters innovation.

The downside to that freedom is a loss of control. Bitcoin benefits from that same freedom. No one is in charge. Developers (people normally controlled by the company), for the most part, keep Bitcoin headed in a single beneficial direction. But, without a boss/company/government controlling them they can and do have very different directions in mind that splinter the focus (segwit, classic, bla bla). That is the biggest reason Bitcoin is stagnating and splintering in development but it's also the reason Bitcoin exists. The lack of strict structure and control is a double edged sword.

[Meuh6879]

Bitsquare wallet attack (more than 5 connexions per IP with differents ports) and Mempool rise ...



https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/

[Lauda]

Bitsquare wallet attack (more than 5 connexions per IP with differents ports) and Mempool rise ...

Just wait for r/btc folk to jump with theories of real world usage with sudden exponential growth during random times of the week.



This picture represents mempool TX count.

[Meuh6879]

yep, same here.

http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/memory-pool






65 000 tx in mempool now.