Quote from: ArticMine on August 05, 2017, 08:32:48 PM

Quote from: Hueristic on August 05, 2017, 02:13:05 AM

Quote from: r0ach on August 05, 2017, 01:53:24 AM

My view on block size issue and how it affects BTC vs BCH vs Mernero. Mernero is technically the more "just" solution, but such a thing might not actually be beneficial if there is greater gain to be had by special interest groups backing the monopoly:

Quote from: r0ach on August 05, 2017, 01:42:28 AM

What special interest groups neglected to tell you about the block size issue:

From an economics point of view, trying to force the entire planet onto a fixed block size with low scaling is a pro-usury extortion stance. Small blocks are a synthetic monopoly. If criminal banks believe they can take control of this monopoly, either through getting a large percent of the transaction validators, or by taking control of all services that facilitate off-chain transactions like Coinbase (or lightning) since on-chain transactions are too expensive to use, then the criminal banks would likely support small blocks over large ones.

The solution to the problem is not 1 MB or 8 MB blocks. Any system with a fixed block size is going to inherently be a pro-usury extortion scheme due to synthetic monopoly. You would need to use a dynamic, scaling block size like Monero to fix that.

r0ach is correct.

Monero's adaptive blocksize limit poses a serious threat to special interest groups if those special interest groups are relying in whole or in part on centralized database solutions for digital payments. This threat is not immediate but rather long term and driven by the exponential falling cost of computing power, memory, digital storage and data transmission. To put this into perspective consider that Bitcoin was proposed in 2008 and launched in 2009. For comparison, the "special interest competition", multi purpose payment cards were conceived in 1949 and first launched in 1950 with Diner's Club.

When it comes to technological change it is correct that with present technology Monero, on the main chain, could not provide the peak transactions per second of the VISA network. For the long term investor that is not the relevant question. The relevant question is how does Monero compare with the Diners Club in 1958 when it comes to reaching the current transactions per second of the VISA network? Let us not forget that the primary data processing technologies in 1958 were tabulating machines, punched cards and telegraph lines. It is here where Monero wins hands down.

Markets of course try to price in the future. The potential transactions per second in the future of the Monero Network is directly related to the purchasing power of 1 XMR by the equation of exchange. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_exchange. The market's perception of the likelihood of this future is reflected in the current price. This is the reason why I like the long term prospects of Monero and have sold all of my Bitcoins. Maybe the fact that I was a toddler in 1958 has provided me with a longer term perspective.

One current example that may be relevant:

Do consumers prefer ISP's with plans offering unlimited data or do they settle for a data cap?

I am finding an increasing amount of people can't keep under a few gigabytes a month, where just years ago, the same people could do without.

Obviously a simplification, but being able to pass only 100Gb a month through my ISP seems just as barbaric as being able to pass only ~4.4 Gb a month with bitcoin.

The isp would probably just throttle my connection, maybe charge me overage costs. In bitcoin I would have to pay increasing tx fees, to prevent the speed at which my tx passes to not be throttled. If my isp were to charge too much, I would look at a second ISP. If bitcoin were to charge too much, I would look for a different way to pay, like another blockchain or payment processor.