That's because the miner chose to not include any transactions in the block, except the coinbase one of course. It doesn't mean there wasn't any waiting in the memory pool.

there is no realistic scenario where plastic card with 1960 chip on it can have meaningfull adoption.

Wait ... mmmmmh ? 

We obviously need a bigger block size if we want to challenge the big payment electronic systems. My main concern is that the people running nodes could be severely decreased due the blockchain being bigger than ever.

Actually the analogy would be to limit the credit card industry to the mainstream data processing technology of the 1940's namely tabulating machines and punch cards. The pre-dates 1) Integrated circuits, 2) Transistors, and 3) The use of vacuum tubes in computers.

Edit: The credit card number would be copied by hand for each transaction.

Why don't we simply increase the limit to 2, 3 or 4MB and have a year or so for drama to improve performance?

No, this is literally the first time anyone has mentioned them ever.  

Ever heard of things that actually exist and are proven to work?  Because sidechains aren't ready yet.  Still in development.  Not functional.  Untested.  How many more times are people going to keep saying the same damn thing like it's some sort of fantastic solution no one has considered?  Yes, sidechains would be great if they were an actual thing.  But they aren't.



Keeping blocks small is not an option.  We've never attempted to run the network with full blocks before and clearly you don't understand the implications of doing that.  At present, if you pay a fee, your transaction is pretty much guaranteed to be included in the next block.  If you don't include a fee, you may be left waiting.  This is how the network has operated since inception.  But if blocks are full, even if you pay an average fee, there may be insufficient space to be included, so you're left to guess what fee needs to be paid at any given time.  This amount will not only vary depending on traffic, but will also be difficult (if not impossible) to accurately forecast.  Every transaction would be a guessing game as to whether it is confirmed in the next block or you have to wait.  If you guess incorrectly, keep waiting.  This level of uncertainty and risk is frankly unacceptable and would undoubtedly impact adoption in a negative way.  Not to mention the forums here would be an endless shitstorm of people whining about delays, saying "Bitcoin is slow and broken".  Attempting to run the network at full capacity is not a desirable outcome for anyone.  Keeping a 1MB blocksize is not viable because no one wants to play guessing games when it comes to time and money.

So, you're against 20 MB because not everyone agrees, but you do want 8 MB, even if not everyone agrees? Isn't that a contradiction?

It's not always about what people want now, it's what those people may need in the future. Isn't it better just to go with the 20 MB, rather than having the possibility of having to make another change soon after?
There is far more damage done by arguing about this, than the 20 MB could of caused, imho.
cheers

I should just leave this here:


It's quite obvious that 1MB won't be enough pretty soon IMO. However, 20MB might be a bit too much at the moment. Although we might just end up discussing(wasting our time) again.
We are very near to seeing full blocks. It shouldn't take us much longer as we already have an average block size of 0.6MB.

This is my issue as well.  If the blockchain.. when the block chain reaches 1 TB.. there will be issues with everyone running a node..

IT would appear the size of the blockchain is out pacing the upgrade in harddrives...