Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 03, 2021, 08:21:25 PM

A fair amount of people consider it the next store of value that will replace gold. It's generally considered something that will belong in the next societies due to its innovation; if you don't care, even to an excessive degree which I disagree that that's how I seemed, how will you convince me that it, indeed, has future?

As in, there is no need for us to maintain the security or the difficulty of mining. The point is that: yes, it is great for us to make it more difficult for attackers to attack the chain. It only becomes an area of concern if you look at the chain at any point and tell me that it is easy for someone to attack it. As of now, that is not the case. We're still looking at the difficulty increasing at the current price and a limited block rewards.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 03, 2021, 08:21:25 PM

My point is that they aren't astronomical or won't be in the long term. If the security, let's say, drops by 50% in between two halvings, it quickly becomes far easier to be attacked.

It has never really been the case at all. Each of the halving are so far spaced apart in time, there is always a more than sufficient time to ensure that the compensation is sufficient such that the difficulty drop is less than proportionate. As each of the halving are 0.5x the block rewards, you will start seeing the rewards being a lower composition of the miner's income. Subsequent halving should still result in a less than proportionate difficulty drop.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 03, 2021, 08:21:25 PM

It is hard to pin down the valid way for Bitcoin to work properly mainly because each user sees it differently. If you ask me, I find it more than just a benefit to run a node. If you want to own Bitcoins, the keys aren't enough. You have to somehow verify that you transacted. Having someone telling me that I did defends its purpose.

I agree that it was an arbitrary choice. It's advisable to state that if we changed it, the new block size wouldn't be arbitrarily chosen, but calculated from much more factors than Satoshi did twelve years ago.

Yeah. I didn't really meant to say that a capacity increase should result in the majority being excluded. Simply no point to make up even more excuses to not make any improvements.