Quote from: stan.distortion on February 01, 2015, 09:46:12 PM

Got to put some in there, there's not a whole lot coming out other than a network that can't work to its full ability is good because then only rich people can use it. How those rich people are going to be attracted to said crippled network and how long they'll stay when they realise its crippled and needs a major change to fix remains a mystery.

What is this "full capacity" magic number?
Are you saying that because I'm a meanie I don't want to share that Bitcoin goodness, that would be available to everyone to transact with, if only we increased the block size?
Do you genuinely think that I was somehow smart enough to go all-in on Bitcoin in 2010, and yet, too dumb to not keep my interests aligned with those of Bitcoin as a whole?

Quote from: Melbustus on February 01, 2015, 09:49:49 PM

Yeah, and when block reward shrinks enough that miners start getting squeezed, they'll stop including transactions with fees that are too small for the transaction-inclusion to be profitable to the miner.

Not really, the thing that you fail to see, is that when deciding to include a transaction or not in a block, the miner is already working on a block.
He doesn't compute the gain from including the transaction by comparing its fees with the average cost of a transaction in that block, but with the marginal cost of including that particular one. Let that sink in for a minute.

Quote from: inBitweTrust on February 01, 2015, 09:56:11 PM

The answer to your question would be a fork of bitcoin with some of the improvements we have been discussing. If we lived in a hypothetical parallel universe where our side was in the minority and fees increased to 10 usd and most miners stayed with your preferred fork than I would have to modify the fork to add a TaPoS layer ontop of PoW to prevent a 51 % attack.

That's not very clear... And I don't think it has that much to do with the discussion at hand anyway.
Betamax and VHS...