Quote from: DooMAD on March 10, 2015, 02:57:30 PM

A 1MB limit will not benefit the majority, so the majority won't want it. Why would anyone support a system that guarantees security for the few and forces risk and uncertainty on the many? Unless they're one of the few, that is.

I do not deny that "the majority" wants all sorts of stupid things; where you're wrong is that this somehow matters. They don't have any money, and therefore will not get their way in this world. How does your argument differ from that which is used to justify the Federal Reserve? I mean, do you think bitcoin is supposed to be like Obolacare? If "adoption for all" is the goal of the former like "heathcare for all" was the goal for the latter, then why not just make a key escrow between thermos and USGavin that enables them to create a coinbase of arbitrary value whenever they please, for the purpose of giving money to people who wouldn't otherwise have been able to participate?

Quote from: sardokan on March 10, 2015, 02:59:30 PM

The miners decide, they can be influenced by points 1 and 2, but they decide

For point 1, if 80+% miners leave (if not, fork won't happens), it will be long to recover and have a difficulty that fit the left hashrate.

For point 2, it's economical factors that will influence miners. so they still decide, but one can influence them. also, to buy on Bitcoin chain, it will be very hard to move coins with the left hasrate.

For point 1, they can't even get more than 10% on "version 3" which isn't even the hard-forking version. Check your debug.log for the string 'SetBestChain'.

For point 2, it may be hard, but not impossible. But it won't be an issue for long. The miners will be forced to switch back in that scenario because they will not find enough buyers on the new chain. The U.S. Government can try to prop up gavincoin for a time, but they will eventually run out of other people's money -- that is, the more they spend on electricity and gavincoin, the more they devalue the dollar. This serves to strengthen the real bitcoin. And since the fork necessarily writes free options for those of us who want to keep the old chain, we'll be shorting gavincoin on the open market while buying up the real deal. It's a win-win-win, and no matter how you look at it the fork just cannot succeed. At this point the only purpose in promoting it is to create a time-sink/distraction from more productive endeavors.

Quote from: DooMAD on March 10, 2015, 03:20:24 PM

The limit was intended to prevent blockchain spam, not create an artificial bottleneck to limit legitimate transactions and force legitimate users off-chain, which is the effect it's going to have if it isn't raised.

What you call "legitimate transactions" I call spam. Pay for your voluntaryism themed lapel pins with silver rounds for all I care, but don't think for a second I will abide them on my hard drive.