Quote from: acoindr on October 20, 2014, 06:05:58 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on October 20, 2014, 05:43:48 PM

Gavin's proposal is fit for immediate purposes, but it just kicks the can down the road for future readjustment. This is problematic in that it will then re-require this leader/authority/deciding force.

This is one of those instances I'm talking about regarding people thinking differently.

You and I seem to fundamentally think differently here, and who is to say who is right? I believe whatever hard fork change we make, if we make one, it will be locked in quite probably forever more. It won't be subject to adjustment. Whatever it is future users will have to work with, sort of like we simply have to work with 1MB if we can't adequately change it. This is due to an ossifying of the protocol, again, as I mentioned above.

Quote from: NewLiberty on October 20, 2014, 05:43:48 PM

Rather than accepting an extrapolation which is guaranteed to be wrong, ...

Define "wrong".

Necessitating future adjustment. A change that does not resolve the fundamental problem, and addresses only the immediate perceptions of today.

In the same way that a fixed 1MB is "wrong".

Quote from: Cubic Earth on October 20, 2014, 09:50:29 PM

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on October 18, 2014, 03:16:46 PM

The answer cannot be in the blockchain, because the problem being addressed (resource usage rising too quickly so only people willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars can participate as fully validating nodes) is outside the blockchain.

IMHO, this is the most salient point on this whole thread. Sometimes you just have to think deeply and clearly to see the truth.

The core dev team are more than just experts in computers, they are also experts in human relations. It's why Gavin and others have so much respect in the community, and certainly why they have my respect. Bitcoin is all about free will and voluntary participation. Every aspect of bitcoin must be in philosophical alignment with those concepts. I'm not worried, I believe the consensus around the principles that bitcoin embodies will continue to grow. This thread has been a great discussion. Some of alternatives to Gavin's plan just don't work on the philosophical level. Therefore, they cannot function on a technical level.

IMHO Gavin's point there is in the category of "just don't work on the philosophical level". It speaks of dollars. It misses the mark on the value of the block chain as a resource. It is short sighted.

Further in practical terms, if you are suggesting that even my first proposal (that essentially replicates Gavin's first proposal in its effect) "cannot function on a technical level" then you would be suggesting that neither could Gavin's.