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

I want what's best for the many, not what's best for MP and his band of cronies.

This is almost as good as wanting what is best for each of the sets of interests, i.e., Bitcoin. The goals of "MP and his band of cronies" are as valuable as everyone else's, and arguably add quite a lot of value to everyone else's interests as well. Both MP and Gavin (and you and I) want Bitcoin to succeed. Your enemy here is not MP or anyone else, your (our) enemy is an insufficiently advanced Bitcoin code.

It is all of our failures to advance the code ahead of the adoption rate. The evidence of failure is that there is the sense of a necessity of a vote with a winning side and a losing side.

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

This has been discussed to death. 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.

We agree on this, except I wouldn't use the words "force legitimate users off-chain" and would favor "make microtransactions uneconomical".
A limit is not pointless, if we crash into it and create a scarcity market for transactions, the result is only this:
Everyone that bought or mined bitcoin today has done so with the current code and has received that for which they paid.
For this, MP is not wrong any more than all of us are. We may all have different expectations as to what may happen in the future, but we buy or mine when we do, based on the current code.

The task before us all now, is to create a code base that will incentivise the next set of people and money to do so... at least at the rate that bitcoin is inflating, and hopefully also to keep it growing before the swarms to come do damage to it irreparably.
Where you and I diverge on opinion is that I am not yet happy with the current proposal to do so. I hope for better, and sooner than 20 years from now.