Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 24, 2015, 08:49:33 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 24, 2015, 08:40:36 PM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 24, 2015, 11:45:32 AM

Quote from: NewLiberty on June 24, 2015, 09:04:05 AM

I'm more of the opinion that Bitcoin will succeed, provided that it does not fail, and that a misstep can easily be worse than doing nothing.
Intelligent people may disagree with this.

The question is, what more qualifies as "doing nothing":

Letting Bitcoin operate with constantly full blocks, which has never been done before, or
Continuing to let Bitcoin operate with non-full blocks, effectively uncapped,* as it always has

?

*Of course a large part of the debate is over whether the current hard cap is actually doing anything. So the appeal to conservatism implied by "doing nothing" just pushes the question back.

Your question presumes omniscience thus it is not falsifiable. Junk science.

It's a question of perspective. There is no correct answer to what "doing nothing" really means, but it's being used as an argumentative tactic among the block-increase skeptics. I'm simply pointing out that neither side has a clear-cut, definitive claim that they are the ones proposing "doing nothing" or "maintaining the status quo" or "taking the conservative position."

Following MP's advice and never changing the protocol (thereby avoiding what he calls creating an altcoin) is an objective definition of doing nothing. It is not the only one, and it might be one that leads to Bitcoin's failure (if the original protocol was not sufficiently well designed to succeed) but at least it is objective.