On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we should not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competition will deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in some other product / fork.

You didn't answer the 2 questions...
Anyway, if we don't care about centralization at all, we can just remove the limit: that's what "technology can provide".
Maybe in that case it is developers who move to a decentralized competitor...

> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity, such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus, because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating nodes are not aware of all transactions. 
>>
>> Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what pushes people to other altcoins, no?
>> Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?
>
>