Quote from: knight22 on September 30, 2015, 08:31:07 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 08:24:41 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on September 30, 2015, 08:19:32 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 08:09:43 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on September 30, 2015, 08:01:58 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 07:53:55 PM

I think we agree that the block size should be a function of the resources requirement for one person to become a peer in the network (fully validate by running a full node).

Therefore it stands to reason that the Bitcoin blockchain will forever be able to accommodate only a marginal amount of transactions worldwide given the resources load implied. Hence the exclusive, "luxury" qualitative.

In which case, we need a definition for the size/location of the margin. I suspect that outright exclusivity is only one way out of many.

Exclusivity is a consequence of the strict security requirements of Bitcoin.

Fortunately this exclusivity does not discriminate people based on status, gender, religion, sexuality, etc but mere financial means.

Moreover, unlike what some narrow minded people would have you believe this does not limit the benefits of Bitcoin to transactions occuring directly on its blockchain. I'm sure you understand that anyway...

Okay, but I stand by my original point really: using words like "luxury" gives the wrong impression of your actual own position, as you've conceded that you only intend a premium on main chain transaction space, not with off-chain transactions or other secondary solutions. You're not making this distinction clear IMO.

I did think your issue was with my choice of word but I'd like to remind you that it was picked in response to knight22's qualification of Bitcoin as some sort of "commercial" good.

In that context, I do think it is legitimate to qualify Bitcoin as a "luxury" item, an "exclusive" payment network.

If bitcoin goes down that path, another more "inclusive" and affordable/competitive system will take over. The bitcoin blockchain has nothing magical tied to it. If you create an artificial cost associated to its usage, you only create an economic incentives for ALL market participant to use another blockchain that scales better and is cheaper.

Bitcoin blockchain might be the stronger and bigger one ATM but it could easily change if there is an economic incentive to do so.

You sound like all socialist shills.

There is no value in "inclusion" and "affordable". Did you not learn anything from your plastic cars, plastic appliances and rampant planned obsolescence.

Cheap people deserve cheap chains, driving costs down necessarily means driving quality down and then your left with a piece of shit that everyone can use but has no value. This is pretty much a reflection of what is wrong with this consumer-driven society: everyone feel entitled to things they can't pay for.