Quote from: wilth1 on February 15, 2015, 05:44:08 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on February 15, 2015, 05:12:01 PM

If we are changing from a static to a dynamic limit, it ought to be sensitive to the need for increase rather than exponentially increasing. This could be either too high of a limit (and creating the potential for vastly increasing network costs unsupported by Bitcoin economy), or it could be too low (and we end up back where we are now).

++

Make it scale organically according to need

My understanding is this is exactly something we cannot do. I didn't think it was part of the debate either, especially as it would be the obviously favorable choice.

Quote

Here's the deal. I do NOT think that it is irrational to consider our 'best bet' to go the direction our leaderships map out for us. It is NOT irrational to trust the democratically elected political and social leaders over a band of often-criminal malcontents who happen to have a disproportionate number of chips at this point in the game. Most people 'love big brother' and I have no reason to think that Gavin and the folks involved with the Bitcoin Foundation are any different. Just the opposite in fact! For that simple reason it does not strike me as especially unlikely that they would like Bitcoin as a solution to be brought to heal and they probably see plenty of legitimate uses for it even when it is. For my part I simply dis-agree with this analysis and see Bitcoin as a pretty boring and useless, and mainly as just stepping stone toward a real solution if they get their way. I'm not ready to give up on Bitcoin just yet.

I didn't fully understand you here, although I do like Bitcoin as a thing that is pretty boring and useless (like gold). I do need to reiterate though, I am the worlds best poker player, I have a chip, and I have a chair.