Quote from: davout on January 27, 2015, 12:55:45 AM

We were given teleportable gold that also happens to be invisible for fuck's sake, that has incredible value in itself, it's neither necessary, nor - for all the reasons exposed - desirable, that it also doubles as a pay-your-parking-ticket-on-the-blockchain dumbed-down version.

Rather than make a point by point rebuttal with all that I disagree (and agree with) let me distill the crux of your argument and address it.

From what I understand your argument is as follows:

Bitcoin is akin to digital gold and which was never intended to support "blockchain 1.5/2.0" technologies , be used for micro-transactions , or scale to be a universal payment mechanism and currency for the whole world. You would prefer that people used the right tool for the right job and be dependent upon multiple types of payment mechanisms to conduct their everyday affairs. The best way we can secure the blockchain is by insuring full block sizes, thus insuring that not only the quantity of minted coins are scarce but the allotment of transaction speed and/or availability is scarce.

Please correct any of the above if I am mischaracterizing your position.

Here are the questions and concerns that would come to mind with your argument:

1) Would you not be concerned another alt which was flexible enough to efficiently handle all types of transactions would make Bitcoin obsolete as it is both inconvenient to carry around multiple forms of payment everywhere or if the alt can perform the same function of Bitcoin for a much lower Tx fee?

2) Are you suggesting full blocks bringing scarcity was Satoshi's original intention or merely arguing that filling all blocks is the best way to secure the blockchain?

3) How have you determined that a smaller amount of transactions per block (but fuller blocks ) at higher fees brings higher security than a high amount of transactions per less filled blocks with lower fees?
I.E..... 4,000 transactions per block @ 40 pennies each(Full 1MB) vs 80,000 transactions per block @ 2 pennies each(Full 20MB) = 20MB block equally secure or Insecure?

I.E..... 4,000 transactions per block @ 40 pennies each(Full 1MB) vs 40,000 transactions per block @ 4 pennies each(half 20MB) = 20MB block equally secure or Insecure?

4) Are you suggesting bitcoins lack of utility to be a one size fits all tool will give it more value?

5) Do you acknowledge that TPS scarcity due to full blocks will ultimately introduce competitive and floating tx fees based upon S/D? Do you believe a constantly changing Tx fee is a good thing for bitcoin?