Quote from: NewLiberty on February 22, 2015, 06:34:47 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.

This particular hard fork is not a negative impact to the store of value. If anything, an increase in the velocity of money improves the store of value utility through increased liquidity.

An increased block size does not correlate with an increase in the velocity of money; it correlates with an increase of spam and a decrease of nodes. The rate at which 1 bitcoin is spent has little to do with how many transactions can occur per second. Lot's of poor people spending the same coin back and forth a thousand times is still less velocity than a few rich people spending several thousand coins a few times.

Quote from: $username on February 22, 2015, 11:56:25 PM

Quote from: $username on February 22, 2015, 11:53:05 PM

1) charging miners for the cost of network transfer
2) charging transaction creators for the cost of network storage (if their UXTOs are not spent / not feasibly spendable)
3) removing the blocksize limit altogether.

2) can be addressed by a 1 satoshi per day fee on all outputs less than 5460 satoshi UXTOs. Within a day this will prune all the 1 satoshi spam from the blockchain. The 5460 satoshi threshold can be halved every block cycle until eventually this fee no longer applies.

This is despicable, and does nothing to address the concerns over unbounded bandwidth and storage requirements put on full-node operators.

Quote from: DooMAD on February 23, 2015, 01:38:36 AM

You should be happy to see us go. Unless, of course, you end up having to admit that you need the rest of us to make this whole thing work.

You aren't needed, and you're not here to lose. And by 'here' I mean "in bitcoin." You aren't in the WoT -- you aren't in bitcoin. We can't lose what we don't have. If there is anyone reading this thread who would like to be a part of bitcoin, you should start the process today. The log isn't going to read itself.