Quote from: wachtwoord on February 03, 2016, 04:10:50 PM

Quote from: dnaleor on February 03, 2016, 12:45:43 PM

Quote from: wachtwoord on February 03, 2016, 12:30:42 PM

Quote from: ArticMine on February 03, 2016, 12:35:00 AM

Quote from: wachtwoord on February 03, 2016, 12:23:46 AM

...

Thanks. That means it's not solved at all (which is ashame of course, but good for Monero).

I do like they dont have a tail emission (I hate that in Monero, smells like Keynsianism, just secure the chain with fees).

The tail emission of Monero places the inflation rate of Monero below the historical inflation rate of gold which after all is the "gold standard" of hard money of Austrian school economists. If anyone has a solution to both secure the chain only with fees and at the same time allow for an adaptive blocksize limit there are many in the Bitcoin community that would love to see this solution. This is after all the real issue behind the blocksize debate in Bitcoin.

Securing the chain only with fees is fixed. Just don't increase the block size. People don't seem to listen to this because they want their damn coffee on the chain for some reason.

With Bitcoin you can make secure payments. You have to pay for that. Only make transactions that need that high level of security.

small bocks will lead to bitcoin banks who will process transactions for you.
Not really desirable imho.

For small transactions extremely desirable. For big transactions not. It works out perfectly

This is of course true for some definition of "small" and "big" (and I guess "perfectly" too).

If Bitcoin continued growing while keeping the same limit indefinitely, eventually ~nobody would like those definitions. 1 MB Bitcoin has approximately enough space for 1% of the world's population to make 1 transaction annually.

Whether Bitcoin will continue growing (in terms of value transferred), and for how long, is an open and interesting question.