[bduerst]

Right, but Litecoin hasn't repeatedly hit it's transaction cap yet. Litecoin is still unproven as to whether or not it will fail to scale, which Bitcoin has already proven to fail at.

You're splitting hairs and ignoring ZCash. The point is that other cryptocurrencies are better implementations of a blockchain than Bitcoin, even with regards to the block size.

[TGilmour]

The market will, and has decided that what you're claiming is wrong. The point that other cryptocurrencies are better implementations is moot, bitcoin is 8 years old and still working very well.

I'm not saying Bitcoin is perfect and complete, it does need to scale, but to claim it has failed is ridiculous. Bitcoin development (or developers) will not implement something that isn't vigorously tested and could jeopardize the network. It isn't as simple as change 1mb to 8mb. If you can provide a technical case for why its so simple or that its safe to do so please post below! I'd be happy to review.

[bduerst]

>The market will, and has decided that what you're claiming is wrong.

Here's the podcast where the bitcoin "market" fails NPR in just the first few minutes: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/06/29/484029238/episo...

I said bitcoin has failed to scale because the miners who have consensus control won't accept any of the forks to increase blocksize. Bitcoin hasn't failed once, twice, but five times now with BIP 100, 101, 102, 103, and 109.

If you think existence is proof of success, then I have some very successful beanie babies to sell you.

[TGilmour]

> Here's the podcast where the bitcoin "market" fails NPR in just the first few minutes: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/06/29/484029238/episo....

The "market" didn't fail NPR, a single transaction took longer than expected due to the transaction fee being too low at the time being sent. That's how markets work, and it's OK if you don't understand markets, but don't run around claiming that something has failed because you haven't taken the time to learn.

> I said bitcoin has failed to scale because the miners who have consensus control won't accept any of the forks to increase blocksize. Bitcoin hasn't failed once, twice, but five times now with BIP 100, 101, 102, 103, and 109.

That's not "failing to scale" because you don't know the end result. If bitcoin implemented those bip's and failed as a network it also "failed to scale" but even more it now failed as entirely.

> If you think existence is proof of success, then I have some very successful beanie babies to sell you.

Show me the current market for beanie babies, and I'll show you bitcoin's CURRENT tx volume, price increase over time, and market cap. It's not existence as proof, it was to show you that one needs patience. Bitcoin's utility is increasing. These other projects have 0 utility. If you disagree please show me anytime other blockchain projects real utility, that's not speculative.

[bduerst]

Payment systems aren't successful by failing transactions. That's definitively not working, no matter how you spin it.

The end result of not accepting BIP is failing transactions. We know this, because it even happened to NPR. Who are you really trying to convince here?

You're also confusing asset value with success for a currency, even as we're entering a Bitcoin bubble from the Yuan crash. Show me a successful developed currency that has the same volatility of bitcoin.

[TGilmour]

It's too bad the NPR didn't provide a tx id so we could see the issue, we just have to take their word for it? I think it's a terrible example with no evidence. It makes for a very weak argument.

Not accepting BIPs and failing transactions aren't mutually exclusive, you can't assert that something that hasn't happened caused something else.

I'm not trying to convice anyone of anything, just point out how wrong you are so that others don't take your FUD as fact.

And no, we were comparing markets, bitcoin and your beanie baby example. Never did i say bitcoin is a successful developed currency. Keep trying though.

[bduerst]

I think at this point, by questioning whether or not NPR is lying about Bitcoin, you're demonstrating confirmation bias. A better question would be: How much do you personally have invested into Bitcoin that relies on it's success?