Your ignorance is your problem, not ours.
> Point 1 is more or less correct, but it's fixed because of batching segwit and LN, next bullrun will prove it.
If there is a next bullrun, BCH stands a good chance of permanently killing the BTC chain outright as described in >>9136002
And no matter how deluded coretards are, even they won't blow thousands on a chain that flatly doesn't work at all, even a little bit. And it's not fixed, in the slightest, on chain capacity is still less than a 28kbps modem from the 90's even with the abomination of segwit, that has turned BTC into a completely different product, and Lightning is a staked routed network that necessarily results in centralisation as demonstrated in >>9136017
> 30% is up from during the transaction crunch, so what are you are comparing?
Gave the link, the trend is very clearly down, it's also up from inception, big deal, it's still a shit change and shouldn't even exist at all pic related
> t's down because fees are low, and people get lazy when they don't face the consequences, so when fees rise so does segwit.
Bullshit, most people don't get to choose whether their transactions are segwit or not, it's down to whatever combination of wallet / exchange setup they happen to be using, and they largely don't care. The response of "Let's just not accept BTC" is more common than "Let's adopt segwit" given falling BTC adoption rates, as it should be, given that segwit is cancer.
> 3. 207k txns in last 24 hours, (transactions, not outputs or actual discrete payments)
So what? Relative to recent volume that is absolutely nothing, you are just trying to throw out a number that sounds large to make it sound like you're not full of shit, but you are full of shit after all.