Quote from: onemorebtc on February 22, 2015, 06:21:47 PM

Quote from: danielpbarron on February 22, 2015, 06:03:37 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on February 22, 2015, 05:40:11 PM

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.

The fork is exactly about money supply. The primary argument used by those in favor of Gavin's proposal is that the fork is needed in order to make bitcoin more inclusive. If we make concessions to these demands now, what is stopping the same people from insisting we create 5 million bitcoin to airdrop into the wallets of some 3rd world country? When getting "mass adoption" is the primary focus, you end up with things like the dollar. I don't want mass adoption; I want sound money.

changing money supply and chaning blocksize are too big different things.
you cant say: "this change is about changing money supply" and state a few sentences later that a new fork would be needed.

the difference is: people who have bitcoin would prefer mass adoption because it will value their coins higher - its the opposit with an higher money supply.

Lets be clear. A fluctuating currency supply is not favorable. But neither is an "Unstable" decision about block size. They both produce the same unfavorable result.

We want a con census that puts the market psyche at rest.

We shouldn't care about a favorable block size...every one of us should only care about a final resolution of it.

And this leads us to the obvious solution, all of us to agree to keep it finite for a long time, say 5 years minimum. In that time consensus to change will be impossible. But in the future, we can use intelligent to change rather than conflict. This seems all quite obvious and logical.