Quote from: inBitweTrust on January 27, 2015, 12:26:14 PM

Answer this question please which you keep avoiding:
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?

Insecure. In the second case, the blocks would be much larger and therefor the blockchain would be more expensive to distribute and store. It is less secure because less people will be able to afford to run full nodes, causing the network to centralize. I'm almost sorry for ever taking on the mantra of "the fees need to go up to help pay the miners." I think you may be on to something with this quote:

Quote from: inBitweTrust on January 27, 2015, 07:04:13 AM

The reward to secure the network will shortly be dropping to 12.5 BTC . If Bitcoins disinflationary nature keeps pace and bitcoin value increases proportionally there will be no need to rely upon Tx fees to secure the network.

But it doesn't change the fact that security depends on more than just giving incentive to the miners. There is more at stake by changing block size than just transaction fees. Do you know how long it takes to sync your copy of the blockchain with the rest of the network? It takes at least a week (more like two or three if you don't have the latest hardware). That's with a 1 MB limit (rarely reached). And you want to make it harder for me to catch up with the network, so that redditards can tip each other less than a coffee's worth of bitcoin. I don't want those transactions on my hard-drive; I don't want to broadcast those transactions over my internet connection. The fee isn't so much to help pay for the security, it's to make frivolous transactions cost-prohibitive. It would be just as good if transaction fees went to nobody. If you're going to spam my hard-drive, bandwidth, and processing power with insignificant micro-transactions, you're gonna have to sacrifice something. But not if the limit keeps getting raised.

Quote from: VectorChief on January 27, 2015, 12:47:09 PM

However, the block size limit, the tx fees structure and even the infamous 21m limit is where it gets interesting. These things are actually inter-related and not completely orthogonal. If it happens that fees are not able to provide enough incentives in the future to keep the network secure, then introduction of permanent limited inflation would be one of the options on the table, no matter how unpopular it might sound today.

Incredible.. "increasing block size is bad for fees, so we might have to also increase the block reward." How much bitcoin do you even have? Do you think waxing philosophical on things you have no business discussing is a suitable replacement for financial investment? It's easy to say "change all the rules" when you don't have any skin in the game. I'd like to see someone with greater than 10`000 BTC come forward and demand a rules change, not because it would be justified, but because at least they have some business making the demand. The rest of you can buzz off. Do you think I'm worried that you'll take your penny transactions to another scamcoin? I'm not. Good riddance.