> It means that the problem has not reached a level of urgency that the scales will tip to the pro-block-size-increase camp.
Hmm. That's one way to interpret it.
Is it true that that -without a max block size increase-, Bitcoin can't process a higher volume of transactions than it processes now? [0] That -in fact- the unpredictable -and generally increasing- transaction fees are a feature of the network designed to shed load -by discouraging "less important" transactions- when the network is at or near capacity?
[0] Which is -apparently- somewhat less than three transactions per second. [1]
Hmm. That's one way to interpret it.
Is it true that that -without a max block size increase-, Bitcoin can't process a higher volume of transactions than it processes now? [0] That -in fact- the unpredictable -and generally increasing- transaction fees are a feature of the network designed to shed load -by discouraging "less important" transactions- when the network is at or near capacity?
[0] Which is -apparently- somewhat less than three transactions per second. [1]
[1] Seriously, think about that for a second. :)