"cryptographer, privacy enhancing tech, ecash, inventor of hashcash (bitcoin is hashcash extended with inflation control)"

Bitcoin is far more than hashcash+

It seems rather obvious that you are in fact part of some sort of sophisticated propaganda.

I don't think I care to bother with you any more (so please stop wasting my time with your stupid replies).

You do realise he invented Hashcash do you not?

Why do they need a 2MB block chain?
(so far the answer is just "because Gavin says so" and "maybe this is a popular thing")

It's frightening too see huge miners so poorly informed about the protocol they are working for.

Basically, if you secede onto a fork that is contentious, you'll loose money.

Simple as that.

In that case you should of course have worked out that the Core Devs do not all work for Blockstream (not even half of them do).

So what about the other half of them?

Also corrupted because "you think so"?

Is that some sort of "smartass reply"?

If so then I'll just ignore it.

(I thought we were trying to discuss some serious issues here)

Well - it seems we have another group of people that do not understand how things work in China.

You can move money instantly for basically zero fees here (and have been able to do that for years).

So Bitcoin simply cannot compete with that - why do you think it can?

(do you not bother to check on these things or you just think China is the same as the US?)

The only thing that Bitcoin offers Chinese (apart from perhaps a store of value if they care to gamble on it) is the ability to move funds overseas which their government would very much like to stop.

The perceive benefit varies. For some, it is that Bitcoin will continue to function as a payment network for individual users rather than a settlement network where only large transactions can be processed cost-efficiently. It is a modest change. It introduces less complexity. It gives SigWit more time.
Also, some believe that it is a test of Core team's willingness to listen to them. If they don't make what appears to be a small compromise, the Chinese fear that they will unlikely to do so in the future.

Go back whining on reddit, or vote on consider.it.

Bitcoin's sound money and security attributes comes first.

Gmax explanation is thoughtful, Core devs does not have the power, nor the will, to force contentious hardfork and break bitcoin's consensus rule.

That is all, there is nothing you or anyone can do about it.

Sorry your head got brainwashed by the full of shit socialist mainstreameries.

And by support and development contract.  Private sidechains can offer functionality that a global decentralized system cannot directly for fundamental reasons-- e.g. instantaneous transactions, not just thing they don't offer yet (like CT or smarter smart contracts); they're just a different trade-off.  

Regardless of what you think of crowding-- an increase in the blocksize does not guarantee its avoidance, as miners are free to impose further restrictions; and a single person with a while loop could produce unbounded amounts of 'load'. Even if I don't expect them to do so, or at least not often, they can and that's always a risk at any (plausible) size.

The kinds of block size increase that even people aggressively in factor of block size increases believe might be viable in the Bitcoin network are fairly modest, e.g. classic and "2 MB", which, as mentioned is pretty close to the proposed segwit capacity.  By contrast, a private system used between businesses, could run arbitrarily large assuming all its participants were willing and able to invest in the cluster computers and expensive bandwidth required at _every_ node. Oh the benefits of not being a permission-less decentralized system.  The space of possible systems which don't require the other benefits of a private system, don't require the benefits of a decentralized public system, and would not work in bitcoin now but would with the kind of realistically small blocksize increase, and would choose to do so.. is pretty narrow-- and isn't something that we've ever considered in business discussions.  More philosophically, the bitcoin blockchain is a precious global shared public resource with huge externalized costs that fall to all future users; it's good stewardship to not cram things that don't need to be in it, into it regardless of what the limits are.

For added color: I've never heard a prospective customer say something like "X TPS won't work but 8*x TPS will work"; they do say things like "X TPS works now, but we might need 100000*X TPS on short notice, can we have that with absolute confidence if we're willing to pour money at it?"  And that latter question can never be true when your only mechanism is dumping all your data into a in a worldwide _shared_ decentralized flooding system run by third parties whos costs you don't pay. So if then also we also avoid huge businesses setting themselves up for failure with the expectation of the 100000 fold increase peak loads that the system couldn't possibly take without a decentralization killing blocksize-bailout, I think that is good too.

But also, hold up a minute. I think we're both playing along with Mike Hearn's claim that it's all _me_ saying, or the techies (or blockstream) alone, saying that HF's are dangerous in principle  and/or that block-size matters. It's not (go check out those bitcoinocracy links-- or Jon Matonis, for an example)... and it's also not our choice (except as people who own Bitcoin, and in our individual capacity to decide what efforts we'll volunteer time on). I get targeted because I've stepped up and drawn fire so that other people can get some work done.

I'm sorry for taking things so off-topic here. This is a tangent, and I wouldn't have gone down it. But people from Bitcoin Core who were on a phone call with some Chinese miners last week told me that some of these claims about Blockstream came up multiple times.  Even if it took a "happily biased" poster here to call them out, I think some people were thinking about them and I think it's better to have addressed them head on. I hope we can talk some about actual business needs in later posts.

Are there any binary downloads for this?

Biz is a good seller,

On the other hand; for me the cards don't work.
I bought 10 EUR cards, uploaded money on them just through bank transfer.
Even before I could withdraw money from an ATM all the cards got blocked.

Would this fork still be needed if/when the block size changes?

This
If people continuously dig out more gold than trade-able goods, then inflation is also possible

You forget to mention that the first few thousand years you mention human population didn't grow as it grew the last two hundred years.

Just in case, deflation means decrease in prices. What you meant to say is correctly called contraction of money supply.

Deflationary economy can last only as long as scientific innovations allow producers to keep their profits on par, i.e. counteract declining prices by increasing productivity (what had been happening through the 19th century).

It has already been established long time ago (welcome Great Depression) that deflation overall is by far more damaging to the economy than small-to-medium inflation.