Quote from: Arghhh on March 09, 2015, 10:38:49 PM

Quote from: danielpbarron on March 09, 2015, 09:58:19 PM

Consider these two scenarios:

Block size remains the same, as does the cost of maintaining a full node, and you will need to pay higher fees to get a transaction included.
Block size increases, as does the cost of maintaining a full node, but the fee remains the same.

Which do you suppose will cost more? Keep in mind that from our point of view, as early adopters, with more than enough funds to pay fees for the rest of our lives, the fee will never be that expensive. Also keep in mind that it is possible to build a full node today for under 100 USD that will last for the rest of your life. These are facts. Whereas I cannot say with any degree of certainty that an unbounded block size will be affordable in the future. I have no idea how expensive hardware will become in the future when the dollar collapses.

Sure, I'm guilty of pulling a number out of my ass. But that number is purely anecdotal, whereas your numbers are of a potentially catastrophic nature.

Perhaps instead of speculating with numbers you claimed yourself, to have been pulled out of your ass, read Gavin's quantitative analysis on blockchain scalability where a claim is backed up with actual numbers

These are the numbers I am talking about -- the ones based on the assumption that hardware and bandwidth costs will always decrease. So you admit that you pulled them out of someone else's ass. That makes it better?

Quote from: Arghhh on March 09, 2015, 10:45:01 PM

Remember that before blowing off Gavin and the blog I linked above, keep in mind that he has a Ph.D., is the chief scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, and is a core developer.

He might be *slightly* more qualified to propose any changes or lackthereof to the Bitcoin protocol than your guru, Mircea Wink

I guess you haven't heard: there's a new foundation in town.

How do you suppose these attributes qualify him to make determinations of an economic nature? I would not trust UnSavory Garnish over the guy who has quite a bit of skin in the game. I would not trust a retard over a market maker.

USGavin is not just slightly less qualified to propose these kinds of changes; he's so far out of the league as to not even be taken into consideration.