Quote from: knight22 on September 10, 2015, 03:31:50 AM

Quote from: marky89 on September 09, 2015, 06:27:24 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 09, 2015, 06:06:41 PM

Quote from: marky89 on September 09, 2015, 05:48:50 PM

Quote from: ebliever on September 09, 2015, 05:38:32 PM

The current price of bitcoin is based largely on expectations of future growth. Choke off that growth and I suspect a large portion of its current valuation will evaporate.

Doesn't that imply that the priority is maintaining bitcoin as a payment system? Or rather, that the only way towards "future growth" is with low fees/fast confirms? It seems that the digital gold crowd doesn't necessarily see things that way. I, for one, don't see the payment protocol as the primary value; it is wholly secondary to that of decentralized store of value.

I can't imagine how this would positively affect price.
primary value or not, price WILL be affected.
at this point if devs don't fix the TPS limit ( bumping the block size limit slightly is a fine solution for now), i'm stepping out, not because it would imply bitcoin will never be a payment system, but because I will no longer trust the dev team to make smart decisions, or make any hard decisions at all for that matter, and would deem bitcoin's development process borken. but i am confident they will up the TPS limit in some form or another in due time.

I guess I take the opposite approach. If the devs were to implement something so reckless as BIP101 (as an example), my confidence in bitcoin would be crushed and I would largely exit my investment position. At least, I would never transact on the XT chain -- outside of double spending Tongue

-- should a valid chain coexist with it.

Many don't realize it, but the robust, secure system that we have now, the consensus on the protocol that exists now -- these are the priorities. When it comes to "the dev team mak[ing] smart decisions," I hope that whatever populist arguments and arbitrary timelines that segments of the community produce are tertiary to those concerns. Conceding to those largely arbitrary and tertiary concerns would indicate to me that the development process is broken.

What's the point of having a ULTRA secure useless thing? There is NONE.

Expect a good portion of the market to leave out if the value proposition is not keeping up. Myself included. Another system will prevail.
Bitcoin's value is derived from its use cases and every speculator with half of a brain understand that. There is no point of speculating on a coin that have no use case prospect unless you are shorting it to death.

Well I guess some kind of compromise will have to be found then. No payment system or any financial tool is not perfect in today's world, so Bitcoin will not be either. Each system has its drawbacks and strong points.

Finding a balance between centralization on one and max size of the blocks on the other side is the only solution that comes to my mind.