Quote from: hdbuck on February 15, 2016, 11:23:19 AM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 15, 2016, 10:58:02 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on February 15, 2016, 10:53:35 AM

Quote from: valta4065 on February 15, 2016, 10:49:41 AM

Quote from: wachtwoord on February 15, 2016, 10:18:14 AM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 15, 2016, 10:14:17 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on February 15, 2016, 09:51:44 AM

Quote from: ButtLava on February 15, 2016, 09:46:23 AM

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize. I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

What? Whaaaaaat?
I'm clearly not aware of that! What are you talking about? What's the link between block size and coins cap?

It is called instigating a _precedent_, changing a protocol parameter such as the 21M limit is 1 line of code, just like the blocksize limit.

Anyway, glad to see that such governance coup is impossible and that nobody, not even core can do anything about it.

Ah ok what he means is not that block size would mean more than 21millions coins but just that both are an important part of btc that shouldn't be changed.

So what do you do about the increasing adoption then? You just stop people from using btc?

Increasing adoption has nothing to do with blocksize cap, but the *trust* in the system to prevent any politicized human interference.

Adoption will follow the need to bypass traditional financial systems, even if it become more expensive to do so (it obviously should).

Nobody is forcing anyone in or out of bitcoin.

But by using Bitcoin you have abide to its protocol, and that is all.

I'm not talking about coins cap but block size.

Block size = limit number of tx = limit number of bitcoiners no?
If you can't make more than X tx a day it means you can't have much more than X people using btc in their daily life... Which means you limit the adoption of bitcoin... Which means it will never be able to replace the fiat system.

I find it both sad and not compatible with the btc ideology. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something though.