Quote from: amincd on February 08, 2015, 12:36:33 AM

So, if I may be presumptuous enough to say, I've established that those in support of the hard fork are not "attacking" Bitcoin, as having larger than 1 MB blocks is the plan that Bitcoin has had since its inception.

What you think Satoshi "meant" is nowhere near as relevant as what Satoshi actually *did*.

Quote from: amincd on February 08, 2015, 12:36:33 AM

Now we move to whether there is a problem to solve. I think a 1 MB restriction that limits Bitcoin (and by 'Bitcoin', I mean the main Bitcoin blockchain, not a sidechain, a third party run micropayment channel network, or some other off-chain alternative to Bitcoin proper)

If you have a problem that resides entirely in your head, for which you apply arbitrary constraints to solutions that would otherwise be perfectly valid and practical, it is no wonder you're going to come up with "solutions" that sound like a load of garbage.

Quote from: amincd on February 08, 2015, 12:36:33 AM

not the Bitcoin I want

There are two things, the Bitcoin "you want", and the Bitcoin that actually exists.
And only one of them will eventually, and perhaps painfully, have to adapt to the other, my money's on reality.

Quote from: amincd on February 08, 2015, 12:36:33 AM

is eventually superseded by another blockchain

Since you seem keen on historical data I'll point out to you that none of the technically superior alt coins actually ever mattered, market-cap wise.

Quote from: amincd on February 08, 2015, 12:36:33 AM

anyone who wants a Bitcoin that is not absurdly expensive to use

OTOH if it's absurdly expensive to use, it'll very probably be absurdly valuable to own.