No. I'm stating, plainly and simply, that nobody gives the slightest fuck about what Satoshi is assumed to have meant.
First, there is no "assumed to have meant". He was clearly against a permanent 1 MB restriction.
This is what you claimed:
Quote
This particular fork advocating eternal blockchain growth and never-full blocks should indeed be seen as an attack. Check my registration date.
What I pointed out:
Quote
It's the fork that Satoshi long wanted. So you're implying he had been planning to his attack his own creation.
Your response:
Quote
nobody gives the slightest fuck about what Satoshi is assumed to have meant. ... You loved daddy very much, we all did, but now he's gone,
Which is a change of subject, and deflection of my point.
To reiterate, and keep the discussion on point: your argument implies that those who want to fulfill the plan set out by the creator of Bitcoin are attacking Bitcoin. This is absurd. There's no more to be said about this absurd line of argumentation.
Quote
Past behaviour is no guarantee of future behaviour
Here you have it.
Naturally, there are no guarantees about the future.
Your concern seems to be:
"If we raise the limit, average transaction fees will plummet, network security will suffer, and Bitcoin will be worse off as a result"
My counter is:
"If we don't raise the limit, average transaction fees will increase, users will leave Bitcoin, and total transaction fee revenue and network security will suffer. If we do raise the limit, total transaction fee revenue will increase along with historical trends, and Bitcoin will become more secure, while servicing more users"
I can point to historical data:
showing that, thus far, average transaction fees have not declined over time, despite the users facing no scarcity created by a limit. It's not a guarantee that in the future average transaction fees won't decline without a limit, but it's more evidence than you have for your extrapolation.