This is pure FUD.

The block size cap is temporary, always has been.
The coin supply is permanent, always has been.

There is a Pacific ocean of a difference.

What stopping them from doing this now and spreading it over multiple blocks?

God I hope your just trolling!

Yeah, at best 2 to 4 tps using 1MB. That's even worse than I thought.

So that's your best response to D&T's post.
*facepalm*

Extremely good post by D&T, worth a read...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

Listen, I'm up for changing the cap, but if the majority choose to stick with the current cap I would choose that chain. It's the sensible thing to do, it's not being a sheep, it's being wise.
Stay stubborn and inflexible, and you will lose.

I hope everyone realises that at some point we will need to change over to a quantum safe keys such as Lamport signatures to protect our private keys. These will invariably require more block space.
I'm not an expert on the subject so please correct me if I'm wrong on this matter.

You are free to continue along the original path of bitcoin with the adjusted size cap, or along the altcoin fork keeping the current 1MB cap or you can make your own altcoin fork.
I think this is a great thing. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. I love it.

No, I'm not Gavin.

I'm not the one trying to spin it around that the removal of the cap (which was the original game plan all along) isn't the "real" bitcoin.

You don't think using the phrase "gavincoin" is in itself insulting?

I'm afraid you are a victim of propaganda and lies.
The 1MB cap was always a temporary measure, bitcoin is just following it's original game plan of removing it. The true bitcoin will be the chain removing the choke.

If the majority of the hash power switches away from the chain you are on, then that chain will stall as the difficulty is very high. It is certainly not risk free.

No trolling. The title is written in past tense, suggesting bitcoin is destroyed.

How would you possibly know what the jury saw and heard in the courtroom?

Didn't want to destroy bitcoin?
Past tense. Has it been destroyed then? Working last time I looked.

It's not a question of what Satoshi wanted.

Listen, when I started using bitcoin back in 2012 I automatically signed up and agreed with a few things.
The main points were (but not limited to):

*) Coins would be generated at a predetermined controlled rate.
*) Blocks would be found on average every 10 minutes.
*) Block size would be temporarily capped, with the plan of increasing it in the future.

By using bitcoin I agreed with these points. As did every other person that has used bitcoin.

If I didn't agree with them, I wouldn't of started using bitcoin at the time. I wouldn't continue using bitcoin for years and then start moaning when it's time to start doing what I signed up for.

The block size cap was always a temporary measure, always has been. Gavin is just following the original game plan of removing the temporary choke. Why would that make you lose his trust?

Archived for future entertainment purposes.

Nothing. The problems start when you try to securely transfer 5 bucks paying 10 bucks instead of 10 cents.