Sounds like early internet culture, you’d understand if you were there. Wait who are you anyways you smell real new.

It looks different when you put it out of context and it was this or faketoshi CSW.

It was not "this or CSW". Pretty much the whole Bitcoin-community had been screaming and begging for removal of the temporary 1mb spam protection so that BTC could grow and expand as promised. This had been going on for years and many great minds had already left to create alternative cryptos, thereby reducing BTC market cap to historical lows. CSW came in late as a crazy maverick with some good ideas and some bad. He later tried to take control of BCH but failed miserably and proceeded to rage quit by creating BSV. He's a compulsive liar and a narcissist and therefore my interest in BSV is zero.

It was contrived traffic created by Roger Ver trying to show how Bitcoin had "failed" as a medium of exchange. He literally lost hundreds of thousands of his own bitcoin doing benefiting only miners at the time. Poor soul.

No one was more invested in BTC than Roger Ver. The network hade been congested for years, there's literally zero proof or sense in Roger Ver trying to spam the network. He was fighting for a compromise/scaling agreement until the last days and actually pretty late to endorsing the Bitcoin Cash fork. BTC traffic was growing organically because people were actually USING BTC in those days, compared to the retard maxis today who just HODL it on Coinbase and hope that "numba go up".

If you understood Bitcoin at all - you would know he was right.

Care to enlighten me in your own words? Satoshi intended to remove the 1mb limit as well, was he too ignorant on Bitcoin?

We are still small Blocks. No high fees. Segwit delivered

The low fees are because it's pretty much dead.

He was saying that the fee market hypothesis (originally from Satoshi) was succeeding: activity levels were high enough to pay for security post-subsidy. Core points were … • Backlogs are useful; they create the “fee pressure” needed for long-term miner incentives and consensus stability. • Suggesting not to overreact to surface-level congestion; look at durable signals like SegWit usage and fixable user inefficiencies instead. • Part of the pain is temporary (“contrived traffic” will fade, plus normal cycles and difficulty adjustments). Besides the tone-deaf champagne line, most people can understand that Maxwell’s message was a deliberate, pragmatic, optimistic assertion that “the system is working.” His main point was that high fees during that time, were the painful but necessary bridge to a secure, subsidy-free Bitcoin tomorrow. Do you disagree?

Greg Maxwell is an economic illiterate and yes I disagree with all of your mental gymnastics. "Backlogs are useful" 😂 Why not reduce the blocks to 10 Kb then, that would surely be even more useful? "Contrieved traffic wil fade" You mean like people actually USING Bitcoin? I'm sorry but I can't take more Stockholm syndrome.