Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 26, 2017, 06:14:50 AM

Quote from: vm_mpn on March 26, 2017, 06:10:24 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 26, 2017, 06:05:09 AM

Quote from: vm_mpn on March 26, 2017, 05:53:42 AM

...That said I do not have any valid arguments against larger blocks, faster transaction confirmations and lower fees, if solution is graceful, does not destroy Bitcoin brand, rarity and trust of over half of it's users.

What about if it hurts it's current decentralized and unregulatable nature?
Do you think Bitcoin could continue to exist or be valuable without them?

I'm all for on-chain scaling and lower fees too, but not if in 5 years Bitcoin is directly
regulated by governments. Look what China is currently doing to their Chinese Exchanges.
You think they wouldn't do that to the protocol if they could?

Satoshi made Bitcoin to be bigger than a low fee payment system, it was for freedom.

Yes, all valid arguments... What China is doing is already done here in the US.

No. In the US and Europe, you can transfer your Bitcoin throughout the world without
restriction or monitoring. China wants to restrict exchange ledger withdrawals to only
other verified people within the country and into other exchanges. Their new regulation
is about restriction, not tax compliance. They want to stop wealth from leaving their
economy (bitcoin has been used by their elites to buy foreign property and etc).

Only time will tell what the impact this will have on bitcoin in the long run.

Yup, that seem to be the main reason they're clamping on bitcoin. Despite any progress they'll boast, many people there, even the rich, would leave it if given just enough reason. If the middle class there would spend money to send their pregnant family members to pregnancy clinics in the US to take advantage of jus soli. If they would shell out that much money for that, just imagine what ways the rich are trying to make sure they can leave at any moment's notice.