Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on August 14, 2015, 10:19:36 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 14, 2015, 09:55:51 PM

ZB had brought up this point before and while it does sort of makes sense from an "antifragile" standpoint, I have a problem accepting it as a viable or desirable outcome.

On that point I believe this post from Alex Morcos is relevant:

Quote

What gives Bitcoin value aren't its technical merits but the fact that people believe in it. The biggest risk here isn't that 20MB blocks will
be bad or that 1MB blocks will be bad, but that by forcing a hard fork that isn't nearly universally agreed upon, we will be damaging that belief. If I strongly believed some hard fork would be better for Bitcoin, say permanent inflation of 1% a year to fund mining, and I managed to convince 80% of users, miners, businesses and developers to go along with me, I would still vote against doing it. Because that's not nearly universal agreement, and it changes what people chose to believe in without their consent. Forks should be hard, very hard. And both sides should recognize that belief in the value of Bitcoin might be a fragile thing.

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34092527/

While I do understand your point about improving on the ability of the users to come to consensus, it seems a stretch to me to suggest that regular changes to the way Bitcoin operate can strengthen the trust people have in it. Rather we should strive to come to a point where the consensus critical code in Bitcoin is set in stone for eternity as it becomes harder and harder for an ever-growing ecosystem to come to consensus on a proposed change.

For that reason, I am wary and quite frankly curious of recent attempts by Hearn in particular to lessen the impact and the dangers of hard forks.

You can't force a fork.

You can't, but by constantly challenging consensus you risk bleeding out some users/trust along the way don't you think?