I run a full Bitcoin node on my home computer, and have been doing so for months. I am not at all concerned about an increase in the 1MB blocksize limit. I am very concerned however that the 1MB blocksize limit not be increased.

Actually the analogy would be to limit the credit card industry to the mainstream data processing technology of the 1940's namely tabulating machines and punch cards. The pre-dates 1) Integrated circuits, 2) Transistors, and 3) The use of vacuum tubes in computers.

Edit: The credit card number would be copied by hand for each transaction.

This is a very serious issue that has been around for a very long time. The simple reality is that if the Bitcoin community does not address this issue soon the very bright potential of Bitcoin will be drastically crippled.

It is very hard to say what Satoshi's motivation was. What is relevant today is that if Bitcoin is to scale then increasing the maximum blocksize is a must.

To place things into perspective, credit cards valid at multiple merchants started in the 1940's and 1950's. http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/credit_cards.htm. The 1 MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin is equivalent to limiting the credit card industry in perpetuity to the data processing technology of the time; namely tabulating machines and punch cards. Does anyone realistically believe that VISA could process anything close to their current transaction volume if they were limited to the technology of the 1940's?

Edit: If Bitcoin does not step into this market somebody else will.

There is very little evidence to justify extrapolating an annual drop of 20% in memory prices over a period of ten years or longer. Here is a history of memory prices since the 1960's. http://www.jcmit.com/mem2014.htm. If one follows the long term trend this threat from the UTXO is simply a non issue.

Memory prices have followed periods of sharp drops alternated by periods of relatively low drops. This makes sense as new technologies reach the market.  

Litecoin
Dodgecoin
Monero
Namecoin

...

On propriety operating systems licensed by Apple or Microsoft they could by getting Apple or Microsoft to shut it down for them. On GNU/Linux good luck. Here is an example of China using Apple's DRM to censor the Dalai Lama from 2009. http://www.macworld.com/article/1145350/apple_china.html

It is totally irrelevant in the context of the recent FinCEN actions since this was fixed by the current developers a year ago. Making thankful_for_today an MSB will have zero impact on Monero seriously.

Edit 1: I fixed the links.  

Edit 2: The current developers did not launch BitMonero with the de-optimized mining code. They took the existing de-optimized mining code in BitMonero and optimized it.

Litecoin and Dogecoin have similar blocksize limit issues as Bitcoin. They are definitely not a safe haven from the Bitcoin hard fork issue. In fact the Bitcoin clones did not deal with this issue even though it has been an issue with Bitcoin for well over two years. The one group of coins that do not have the hard blocksize limit issue is the Cryptonote coins which is what attracted me to Monero in the first place.

Bitcoin hardfork + Fincen going after IPO/ICO/Presaled coins makes Monero very attractive.

Edit: It is important to recognize that FinCEN is not going after the coins themselves but rather after those who received the proceeds of the IPO/ICO pre-mine etc. To the degree that these individuals and organizations have an impact on the future of the coin will determine the impact of FinCEN's actions on the coin itself.

Here is the Ripple agreement. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/05/05/settlement_agreement.pdf Well worth reading especially Appendix A. My take is that a fairly launched POW coin (no pre-mine, insta-mine or ninja-mine) is likely safe. So would a proof of burn such a Counterparty. The rest could easily be currently under investigation. If they are working their way down the market capitalization list, it will be very interesting to see how they react to DASH. I would also suspect Ethereum is in the cross hairs not only of FinCEN but also of the SEC.

I do not see Ripple as a competitor to Bitcoin. It does have the potential to become a competitor to Swift http://www.swift.com.

The very recent events including the settlement agreement with the US Government. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/05/05/settlement_agreement.pdf is a must read for anyone considering purchasing Ripple or for that matter any premined, ICO, IPO etc coin. In particular the following quote from Appendix A is critical.


By the way, The conclusion I see here is that pre-mine = MSB. As for insta-mine and ninja-mine coins whether or not this leads to the MSB designation could easily require an army of lawyers to figure out.

Keep hoping. The recent rise in Bitcoin coming on the heels of the 700,000 USD fine to Ripple should be a warning to any Monero bear. Let us say that if newly minted coins go anywhere but to a miner, the coin itself is very likely on FinCEN's crosshairs.

There is nothing new here. FinCEN has issued guidance over two years ago that makes a clear distinction between a Centralized Virtual Currency and a De-Centralized Virtual Currency. http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html. Centralized Virtual Currencies mean that the Administrator and this can easily include developers etc. are considered MSBs and subject to MSB and AML/KNC regulations. Premined, IPO, ICO coins and likely many instamined and ninjamined coins are considered Centralized Virtual Currencies and subject to MSB and AML/KNC regulations.

For a coin to be considered a De-Centralized Virtual Currency both the following conditions have to be met. This is among many reasons why I have limited my Crypto-currency investments to Bitcoin (XBT), Monero (XMR) and Namecoin (NMC) and have stayed well away from premined, instamined, ninjamined, IPO, ICO, etc coins. We must keep in mind that the whole point of Bitcoin was to create a de-centralized form of money without a centralized controlling entity, and not to replace one centralized controlling entity with another for private profit.

Edit 1: If one wishes to invest in centralized forms of money one can buy shares in a bank.
 
Edit 2: It is not just FinCEN that premined, instamined, ninjamined, IPO, ICO, etc coins need to be concerned about. In the United States there is the SEC, and then there are hundreds of national and sub national regulatory bodies worldwide that could follow FinCEN's lead.  

Actually the link works now, but for a few moments well ...

the link leads to

 

Of course there were those who sold at 0.0011 hoping to buy moar at 0.0008 and the market bottomed out 0.00091.

There are MACD bullish divergences regarding the recent 0.00189 low in all the charts between 1 day and 1 hour.

Allowing the execution of certain Windows executables on GNU/Linux does increase the security risk of a GNU/Linux system given the sheer amount of
Windows malware in the wild. I do recognise however that this risk is very small but it is finite. I do not use Wine for this very reason. When it comes to XMR, XBT, etc  I prefer to be safe than sorry. MoneroX is a great project, unfortunately the choice of C# and .net is a small but not insignificant negative. I have downloaded and tested MoneroX and will likely do it again in the future. I am currently undecided on using it on an account with actual XMR, I may or I may simply wait for the official GUI.

I wonder if 90% of Monero users trust their XMR to Windows. I do not. elrippo does make some very valid points.

Edit: The biggest risk here is not the .net framework itself since Microsoft has released it as FLOSS but rather that it can open the door to other Windows Malware on a GNU/Linux system. A similar problem can occur with the Wine project.   

Actually it matters a lot. If one reads the actual report https://securelist.com/files/2015/02/Equation_group_questions_and_answers.pdf one finds that this is a suite of Microsoft Windows malware that hides in the firmware of the hard drive. It was likely written by western intelligence agencies who were given access to the Windows source code including all the DRM secrets by, PRISM participant, Microsoft. There is some evidence that there are some components of malware for IOS and OSX. We must keep in mind that Apple is also a PRISM participant and would very likely also share its DRM secrets with these same agencies. There is zero evidence of infections targeting GNU/Linux.

If one builds a beautiful house, Monero, on top of a shaky propriety foundation provided by Microsoft or Apple, one should not be surprised if the house comes tumbling down with the slightest breeze on the part of some government agency. Build the same house on top of a solid FLOSS foundation and it will likely survive a few hurricanes.

Monero is a fabulous project for privacy and freedom; however in order for it to work it also needs a solid foundation.