Newliberty, WE are off topic until we relevate Ideal Money in relation to the OP. It SEEMS otherwise, because we function from a false perspective that Satoshi is a person. I'm likely away for 10 days regardless, I hope you all can finally become sincere.
In other words, the lecture serious Ideal Money was specifically prepared and given, on the exact topic of this OP. You cannot ignore the lecture and refute this simply obvious truth. READ IT!
"Ideal Money" is a very broad topic.
It is not so relevant here.
This fork is a very narrow issue. Attempts to broaden it too much harms the discussion.
There are a great many posts in this topic to promote Nash's lecture series. We all understand it is interesting. It should be a
separate thread, or condense
something in particular that makes it relevant. The normal thing is to put it in your .sig where everyone can see with each post, and stick to the topics of threads, please.
I could ask all to understand everything written in
http://mises.org and the last 30 years but it would be silly. It is a good thing to understand, but the relevant bits to this topic can fit in a few sentences.
The notion that we need to agree because it is bad for Bitcoin to disagree is also not helpful. We either agree or do not agree. When we do not agree we might end up with multiple consensus chains. This is not the end of the world, or even the end of Bitcoin.
Unless and until the fork happens, it is our responsibility to improve the understanding of the people that may be subjected to it. To understand the problems with the proposals, and the difference between a good proposal and a bad one.
We also need to work toward understanding what brings us to this point: What are the criteria for a hard fork of this nature? Under what conditions may it occur? When is it crazy and when is it sane, what justifies it if anything?
====
The problem with Gavin's proposal is that it is almost good enough temporary solution to become a permanent solution. It's saving grace is that if implemented, then fixing it (by cutting out the exponential growth or reducing the size to fix a spam problem) would be a soft fork instead of a hard one.
I hope to get closer to an accurate indefinite solution. One based on measurement and responses.