Quote from: traincarswreck on February 21, 2015, 11:25:54 PM

There is one more missing variable, but alas it cannot very easily be relevated, because of our belief of the purpose and cause of "fighting" or "conflict" and relation our lack of understanding to "Ideal Money" or in other words the effects of an unstable global economic "situation", or the effects of floating currencies.

Humans (or life in general) is expected to evolve through perpetual conflict ONLY up until a point in which they develop and relevate a hyper currency (bitcoin). And/or in other words this has to do a lot with the Wealth of Nations, in which these nations create a global economy and stop invading newly discovered lands.

If we understand the above post about the base needs for an equilibrium of wants that creates a stable "nation", when we understand also the cause of war (or peace).

And so what we can expect in the future is a society that cooperates more and teaches its peoples (and all life) about the benefits and importance of it. We are in fact not destined to fight and we do not actually in the future rely on conflict to evolve (even in games says J.Smithy).

And so I worry about setting certain block size limitation based on the financial incentive required for securing "trust", because eventually this need will not exist, or at least not anywhere near to the extent we require it, or we think in the future we might require it.

I wonder if we can discuss then, whether or not this would be a kind of reverse inflation, a deflation, or something that might unravel the robustness of the entire system.

In other words, if all of this is about incentivizing a system against attackers, it will certainly, in the future, lose its coherence, if we do not plan for cooperation. Of course if we do not believe in the possibility of a cooperative society then I cannot make this point.

This hard fork gets a lot of attention, but it is not all of what Bitcoin is about.
It is instead, an example of one of its failings. Yes, it is just about the balance between security and utility. It is not about money supply at all.
Your discussion of Keynesianism and ideal money, notwithstanding.

Does your notion of "ideal money" include manipulation of supply in order to "manage" an economy by a group of managers that claim to know more about what is right than everyone else? If so, than this fork discussion is not where your notions belong. The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility. This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

Yes... lets discuss your concepts, but in this thread they are off topic. They were only raised here to show how they have no importance to this particular discussion.