If Bitcoin were to hit some limit, I dunno what, just maybe there is a limit in the code which people might start writing threads about on bct, but anyway, if Bitcoin hit some limit and couldn't scale anymore, then the network effect is arrested. Bitcoin, just being software that can be copied does not have the privilege of gold which is a rare physical element. Some other version of Bitcoin, an existing alt perhaps, which can scale will build up its own network effect from all the users who can't use Bitcoin. If Bitcoin found some crazy limit where only 1% of 1% of the world's population could use it, then it would become obsolete. It would be a footnote in the history books written about the alt which eventually succeeded as the new electronic gold standard.

There is a fundamental drawback of open source cryptocurrencies: anyone can copy the code and make a new one.

I'm getting tired of people repeating the same lie that alts have more features of development behind them.

It is not the job of "base money" to be stable against other currencies. Base monet doesn't give a f*ck

Bitcoin will continue to evolve and make most alts pointless with time.

That sounds like a bit of a robotic statement that's never been thought through.

The dollar is backed by the debt of bond and mortgage holders. It is not in a position to back anything. It is a proxy for future economic activity.

You have posted a lot that you don't want gavin's update but you haven't actually posted why.

All you have done is repeatedly assured us that if the update goes in then MP will try to fork the blockchain.

I know why MP doesn't want the change, he's made it perfectly clear. I don't agree with him, but it's his opinion so I respect that. We just want different things out of bitcoin.

Why don't you actually want the change?  Hint: "Because it will fork the blockchain" isn't an answer, its at best FUD at worst a threat.

Here i the thing: Nobody required them to to sign up for anything, not satoshi, gavin, the bitcoin foundation or mark karpeles.
And it does matter what people decide to be Bitcoin in the future, innovations don't happen inevitably. It happens only if a majority of the people realize they need it and if the people who have the necessary skills to innovate decide to work together.

Let them do it, sit back relax and watch it go down the slippery slope over the decade.

Perhaps long after reversible transactions, inflation/deflation according to economic factors and a more sane transaction storage practice are in it finally becomes a usable payment system one can call a currency. Nobody except the victims of the pump & dump will shed a tear about the fixed coin supply if there is real economic growth.

Why do you keep trying to rename bitcoin, what is your agenda. Its almost as if you are trying to frighten people, make them feel uncertain about bitcoin's future so they doubt it will succeed.

In actual fact, you trying to tell people a second for will exist, is blatant speculation!

What's interesting is that your repeated use of the term 'hard fork' shows that you pay more attention to the media than to the facts. The term is used by media outlets because it carries gravitas, it generates click through revenue, it 'sells papers'.

What Gavin is proposing is an update to bitcoin core that allows for larger blocks - that is not a 'hard fork', despite what you read in the papers. The deployment of the update can be properly managed so as to create minimum disruption to all of those with a vested interest in the continued success of bitcoin, just as satoshi described.

What you actually mean is a blockchain fork. This is not something Gavin can do, or even MP in his omnipotence! A fork is just what happens when miners haven't yet reached consensus, eventually they do and one of the chains becomes orphaned and every one just carries on.

Here are two axiomatic truths. There will always exist bad actors. There will always be innocent people that just forget to upgrade.

What the bad actors here are trying to do, is subvert the upgrade process by trying to fork the blockchain by only accepting smaller blocks. The bad actors will intentionally not upgrade, and will take advantage of the fact that there are innocent people who have forgotten to upgrade and recruit there hashing power. (of course they will also then try to argue that all of these people are 'supporters')

The thing is, in reality those chains will too become orphaned in time. That too is mathematically certain. The only way this cannot happen is if the bad actors are able to pull off a 50% attack... Now is that really what you are suggesting that you would do just to stop this change from being implemented?

MP is super smart but an egomaniac with it, which makes his his blog blog a great read! (I'm serious btw).

Only he would try and hard fork the blockchain just to get his own way! ... whilst all the time accusing everyone else of being the villains

even worse: an sha265 alt...
with a strong bitcoin with much much more hashrate this alt wouldnt survive long and wouldnt be safe from 51% attacks

dont you think its a little bit stupid to assume that 20mb blocks are filled immediatly as soon as they start to exists if atm 1mb blocks are not filled?

and dont forget miners are also people: if they think it should stay at 5mb it will be there... so there is no "automatic" doomsday scenario

Oh it fits, alright. It fits BIG TIME!

But seriously: who else besides a handful of you will continue to support MPcoin? Seriously!? It will turn into an altcoin, right?

Edit: or a sidechain??