until very recently bitcoin has effectively had no block size limit, as blocks near the protocol limit were almost non-existent.

What if you are a day trader and need to keep your coins on the exchange to benefit from market movements?

Great! I'm waiting for it eagerly.

I should actually correct myself here since I overlooked the potential tragedy of the commons situation when it comes to miners including transations- a blockchain with no block size limit would not necessarily generate the most fees or be the most secure for that reason. However, it's still entirely possible (and in my opinion quite likely) that increasing the block size limit from 1 MB would increase the total fees per block in the long run.

without MPEx no fork of this network can succeed

Bitcoin's effect on gender relationships is going to be very interesting.

In certain parts of the developing world, it's going to give women the ability to gain far greater degree of financial independence from their husbands and fathers than they currently enjoy.

In the developed world, it's going to give men the ability to gain far greater financial independence from their (ex-)wives than they currently enjoy.

Once the men in the developing countries and the women in the developed countries figure this out, then the anti-Bitcoin hate machine will really kick into high gear.

Question to the folks who've been testing 0.93 the most:  what are your biggest remaining concerns with this release?  If I told you I was going to release the software after fixing the tx export problem (which will be in a .6 release in the next 24 hours), what would you complain about the most?  No version of Armory is perfect, and at some point we have to say "pencils down", as long as there's no security or major usability issues.

I'm welcome to take feedback from anyone, but in particular I'm inviting:

helgabutters, TimS, zombieslayer9099, justusranvier, bitpop, and Carlton Banks 

My apologies if you have been participating actively and I missed your name:  I haven't been following this thread too closely myself, and I just picked out names at a glance that had multiple feedback posts.  Ideally, I'd at least get a few thoughts back from everyone who has been involved in this the last few weeks.

(EDIT:  OSX doesn't count... I'm hoping OSX is relatively stable, but at this point we can't dump too much more in terms of resources into it for the 0.93 release)

I was already assuming a perfectly idealized p2p network that had no overhead or sub-linear scaling. I've done as much to explore the space of efficiency gains in this kind of system as any two other people combined here, come on. Please don't try to play off that I don't know how the system works.

Decentralization has inherent costs.  You're not saying anything to escape that.

I believe you're making a false comparison. None of the market participants have a way to express their preference for a decentralized network except by defining Bitcoin to be one though the rules of the system. Absent that someone who doesn't care and just wants to maximize their short term income can turn the decentralization knob all the way down (as we've seen with the enormous amount of centralization in mining pools) and maximize their income-- regardless of what the owners of bitcoins or the people making the transactions prefer. You could just as well argue that miners should be able to freely print more Bitcoins without limit and magically if the invisible pink hand decides it doesn't want inflation it will somehow market-prevent it (in a way that doesn't involve just defining it out of the system).

This is a bit unhinged.

So effectively one can replace the fee market with a market that favors the most centralization they have the lowest costs (as thats all network income would pay for).  This may be true, but it's not interesting-- since if a highly centralized system were desirable there are more efficient and secure ways to achieve one.

what is misused and what can not be calculated?

What you describe is less than rational limit in 2.

1) the space is scarce

Conclusion
The blockchain permanently restricted to 1MB is great if you are a major bank looking to co-opt the network for a next generation limited trust settlement network between major banks, financial service providers, and payment processors.   It is a horrible idea if you even want to keep open the possibility that individuals will be able to participate in that network without using a trusted third party as an intermediary.

Hopefully between that and https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/ this stupid argument is over.

A: AS we said this is a real problem indeed which is giving already its inflation related problems. But, I’m sorry, right now we don’t know any technical solutions for it.
The only thing you can do is helping proposing/creating a technical solution to compel exchanges to be more transparent and asking for the creation of p2p exchanges.