Quote from: inBitweTrust on January 27, 2015, 12:58:34 PM

PoW will be unlikely to ever be eliminated because of vested interests, so we may as well not waste each others time even considering switching bitcoin from PoW to PoS. Adding additional algos like TaPoS ontop of PoW is certainly possible and may even be carried out at the sidechain or wallet level.

Changing the 21 million limit while, hypothetically possible, should remain in the unanimous consent category as it is a fundamental economic principle behind bitcoin (being disinflationary vs inflationary) and would be unethical to betray the a majority or minority by stealing wealth from them through unforeseen inflation. We already have plenty of examples and choices with inflationary currencies, we are just asking for one disinflationary choice that does not betray the users in this economic experiment.

There are many other ways to pay or accomplish network security and the fact that you immediately are open to completely changing the economics of bitcoin without exploring the other options is frightening.

With this thread , changing the block size , while does have some unforeseen and unexplored economic consequences, doesn't change the core principle that bitcoin remains disinflationary.

I previously considered an option that the network would be secured by competition for control (even with potential monetary losses), but was confronted with a notion that it was not economical. So I kept thinking.

I'm not advocating any further changes at this point, simply considering possibilities. The balance between tx fees and block subsidy is equivalent to that of economic activity versus saving. By totally getting rid of inflation we will have active economic participants carry the burden of securing the network, while savers would enjoy a free ride. The opposite is also true, thus balance needs to be sought.

I think being disinflationary is important for Bitcoin in order to gain adoption while contrasted by inflationary fiat, but once we are there, it's going to be up to the people to decide how to proceed further. The bigger the system gets the more difficult it is to push any changes. So alts might take some directions that Bitcoin would be unable to. Money is a dynamic essence, we should keep our eyes on this space and let our voices heard. Let the debates proceed

.