Quote from: RoadStress on February 08, 2015, 06:09:01 AM

Quote from: amincd on February 08, 2015, 05:44:33 AM

Icebreaker wants a permanent 1 MB block size limit and for Bitcoin to lose 60% of its market share to altcoins.

Now you understand why they can't grasp the reasons for a higher block limit? They simply can't understand that a network that has a higher net-worth is much more valuable to have and will pay higher fees than a network with a lower net-worth.

What I find pretty amusing is that all the people that are against the fork want to limit something or someone with their ideas, while Gavin's idea only opens a door.

Not only that, they are being quite disingenuous in how they go about it.

Icebreaker now claims that he doesn't want a permanent 1 MB block size limit, even though he made a post titled:

"Permanently changing the 1MB transaction supply is a great idea ..."

as a play on the title of DeathAndTaxes' post, which simply argued that the 1 MB block size shouldn't be made permanent. His post ridiculed DeathAndTaxes' position, and strongly implied that he favored a permanent 1 MB restriction.

And he refuses to address how far his vision of a super expensive "super gold" transfer system, that only large financial institutions can afford to use, strays from the original Bitcoin white paper of a "purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."