Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 24, 2015, 05:42:00 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 01:04:51 AM

I've shown these diagrams a lot because I think they reveal the essence of the situation. If the limit remains to the right of Q*, then it doesn't really matter what the limit is because it does not affect the free market dynamics. However, if the limit falls to the left of Q*, then the pressure due to the deadweight loss will eventually cause a fork to move the limit back to the right of Q*!

TL/DR: There is no way to stop Bitcoin from growing.

Your idealized considerations of spherical blockchains are suitable for academic and altcoin architecture consideration, but serve no positive purpose in the practical matter of Bitcoin's max_block debate.

What you misleadingly mislabel as "deadweight loss" due to a "Political measure" are actually the beneficial artifacts (including anti-spam/DoS externality regulation) of Bitcoin's incentives for creation of fee markets (and the efficiency|antifragility thus accrued).

I'm sure you disagree, so, to avoid a stalemate due to differing opinions, let's appeal to expertise...

You show those diagrams a lot, because you "think they reveal the essence of the situation."

I'm glad you think the "essence" of Bitcoin's Grand Schism can be revealed by a Powerpoint slide or two.

And I'm glad you were able to expose your precious slides to an attentive audience at the first #ScalingBitcoin workshop.

Now, let us consider how many of the experts at that workshop were persuaded by your putative Domination Slide.

Hmm, I can't think of any. 101/XT's slide into oblivion was not paused or halted, and instead accelerated, in the wake of that conference.

ok soooo....

You're using a tautological argument to claim that Peter's fee market theory is wrong because the dead weight is really being used to create a fee market Undecided

...and then topping that off with an unabashed appeal to authority.

Good one.