Wowow. You've moved on to the top tier to troll the die-hards?

Yes! 

Yeah, hopeless & ungrateful, but they're my cross to bear.  Also FTFY.

Yep.  We have got to be fairly close to another bottom.

trolls can relax, scaling is a solved problem, and has been since mid-2011. Implementations are now coming into public domain, just as the market demand arises.

Off-chain payment channels, incl. blinded hub-spoke, are an elegant, cheap, fast, privacy-enhancing mechanism that has as good security as full btc TX by essentially aggregating many TX into a single daily/weekly/monthly on-chain settlement TX.

Side-chains are a side-show that wont be effective for regular TX (too complicated), maybe useful for more exotic derivatives, smart contracts, stock-trading, bonds and etc, but do not let them be a distraction in the scaling 'debate' (which is over now in knowledgeable circles).

Nice to see this thread merits the attention of the professional trolls.

Cypherdoc must be doing something right.

Collapsing in waves.

Aha.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2t7e11/justus_ranviereconomic_fallacies_and_the_block/
Justus Ranvier--Economic Fallacies and the Block Size Limit, part 1: Scarcity by xcslerin Bitcoin

[–]theymos 6 points 11 days ago*
There's a hard protocol rule called the max block size which limits the number of network-wide transactions to a few transactions per second. The actual number of transactions per second depends on the size of the transactions, which varies. Removing or increasing this limit would require everyone who runs their own Bitcoin wallet to upgrade their wallet software. A change to the Bitcoin network which requires everyone to upgrade is called a hard fork.
Such a small limit on the network's capacity is obviously undesirable, and many people are a bit horrified that the Bitcoin network is limited in this a way when they first learn about it. The naïve response is to just completely remove this limit, which seems at first glance to be an utterly pointless restriction on Bitcoin's scalability. (Some well-informed people also hold this view and have reasonable arguments.) However, many Bitcoin experts believe that completely removing the limit is fairly likely to cause Bitcoin to become highly centralized, or become too weak against mining-based attacks, or be destroyed entirely. But even if Bitcoin can't handle as many transactions as we'd all like, that doesn't mean that Bitcoin is useless: there are several well-explored but not-yet-implemented ideas for using Bitcoin securely, cheaply, and easily without creating "actual" Bitcoin transactions.
I might try writing an easier-to-understand but still fairly complete and accurate summary of the issue, but that'll take several hours, and I don't have time right now. Until then, here's a propaganda video from someone who supports keeping the max block size at its current level for the foreseeable future, which is not what I support. The video also contains some exaggerated/controversial statements. But it's probably still an OK video for getting the basic idea.

That chart sure looks pretty, but you should post a linear one, which shows a different picture  

Everything that started at near zero and had fluctuations when it wasn't worth much and was eventually pumped way higher will have a similar chart in logarithmic scale.

Price could go at double or single digits and still look like a decent uptrend in the chart you posted for someone who can't read a logarithmic chart like it's supposed to. You are saying there is nothing to worry if it even goes to double or single digits?