Quote from: VectorChief on January 27, 2015, 04:48:45 PM

Quote from: danielpbarron on January 27, 2015, 02:32:05 PM

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.

I knew it was gonna be controversial, but someone needed to throw that one into the discussion. Bitcoin gains its value not only from the idea of its limited supply, but also from growing adoption. People forget that. If another coin gets more traction while Bitcoin loses momentum it got from its first-mover advantage, then it will have to compete on mere technicalities, which are easy to replicate due to its open-source nature.

Thus Bitcoin needs to keep pace with the market development in order to stay relevant. The fact that PoW-secured blockchain can scale beyond 1Mb per block is not a rocket science. The question is - will it be Bitcoin or something else? If it's something else, what makes you think that Bitcoin will maintain its value?

Growing adoption doesn't mean we need to scale beyond 1MB. Certainly not at this point in time.
Not every coffee purchase needs to be in the blockchain. I doubt bitcoin can support microtransactions anyway, not even with gavin's proposals.
I think many people support the idea of bitcoin as a store of value and want to cut the third party risk of the current monetary system.
Think gold - you buy an ounce, or 1/10ounce. What's the point of paying with gold for a coffee? Only if gold could be sent over the internet....

I understand the other side of things - that it would be nice to have bitcoin supporting even micropayments but lets slow down and think it over first. I mean those changes suggested are still not a final solution to all bitcoin flaws and haven't even touched on more important things like mining centralization. It will make the system even more centralized - there is no doubt about that.

I guess people with the 'Fork it hard' attitude don't hold enough stake or are simply arrogant to the dangers of a hard fork.