I was trying to agree on the fact that we need bigger block limits. Do you agree with what JGarzik posted on the Mailing List? If yes then we both agree that we need a bigger block limit which is fine with me. It's the only thing that I'm advocating for.
Yes I believe I have shown in extensive detail that the thesis of ideal money is that bitcoin is to be more like gold than a coffee payment system. But that is not at all to say we don't need a larger limit. It is clear we do. It seems clear all the logical people, that are not functioning on assumptions, understand all of this, and that a proper limit cannot be attained and rather best guess must be what we shoot for (ie gavins' testing and best guess).
Ideal Money, and Ideal Poker both suggest exactly the below, and I am claiming so does exactly Adam Smith in the Inquiry and Causes of TWON:
Bitcoin payments are like IP packets -- one way, irreversible. For
larger value transfers this attaches attendent risk of loss -- as
we've seen in the field time & again. The world's citizens en masse
will not speak to each other with bitcoin (IP packets), but rather
with multiple layers (HTTP/TCP/IP) that enable safe and secure value
transfer or added features such as instant transactions.
It is foolish to think the entire world will connect directly to the
P2P block network and broadcast all the morning coffees to all the
miners. That's not how the system works. It is a settlement layer.
We _must_ build decentralized layered solutions on top of bitcoin,
rather than stuffing everything into bitcoin itself.