You make some good points, in terms of how do we define low cost, however if we did not increase the block size at all and there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive, this most certainly can not be defined as low cost.
The logical problem here is that you are using a subjective definition to define "low cost." Whether the cost is "prohibitively expensive" is, of course, subjective. $.05 may be prohibitive for some. $100 may be prohibitive for another.
, since the path we choose for Bitcoin is based on the ideology we hold. Decentralisation and freedom might be the ideology we hold, but it is a subjective position, not one borne from science but philosophy and ethics. These questions are political in nature. Therefore what we consider to be "low cost" is indeed subjective. However most rational ideologies would consider $100 to expensive if our goal is to have more people use the Bitcoin blockchain directly. This premise however is entirely based on our ideology and it is therefore entirely subjective as it should be.
The logical problem is arguing that fees could ever be "prohibitively expensive" if we don't have a standard definition of "expensive." So yes, this boils down to an ideological issue.
I was responding to the idea that "[if] there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive." Logically, the former only entails the latter once we have formed a standard definition of "low cost" or "expensive." This is likely impossible.
In a heavily censored, totalitarian world, many people might be happy to pay $100 to make payments in any amount that cannot be externally controlled.
In a world where there is a free market of cryptocurrencies people would just choose to use another cryptocurrency instead of paying such a fee. Bitcoin is not guaranteed its success, it must still compete with other cryptocurrencies.
Hey, if there's another cryptocurrency that occurs to me as decentralized "sound money", has robust network security and healthy velocity of money, I'm all for it. At this point, I don't see any real competition for bitcoin. And should some altcoin overtake bitcoin in adoption, I'm all for that, too. This type of argument just boils down to more irrational fear that we aren't acting quickly enough. But bitcoin is an economy, with many stakeholders who deserve consideration in the matter. Emphasis should be on core values like decentralization, consensus and network security -- not urgency to compete with other cryptocurrencies.
There are many alternative currencies that are technically superior to Bitcoin, some have even solved the problems of scalability and some of the aspects of governance. Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum, you might be willing to spend $100 per transaction but I do not believe that the majority would do so. Especially considering that alternatives do exist where we can transact much cheaper and also with much more anonymity. Therefore it is not a irrational fear to think that Bitcoin should compete with any other alternatives in the real world.
Feel free to use those "superior" implementations, then. I wish you the greatest of success. I see no reason to at the present time. And those of us with a considerable stake in bitcoin have no interest in using altcoins as an excuse to fuel reckless approaches to scaling.
Hey, if there's another cryptocurrency that occurs to me as decentralized "sound money", has robust network security and healthy velocity of money, I'm all for it. At this point, I don't see any real competition for bitcoin. And should some altcoin overtake bitcoin in adoption, I'm all for that, too...Emphasis should be on core values like decentralization, consensus and network security -- not urgency to compete with other cryptocurrencies.
I would add financial freedom to this list of core values as well. I think that if we do not increase the block size it will compromise the principle of decentralization. Because reliance on third parties should be seen as a form of centralization.
Financial freedom -- do you mean "low cost?" If so, the burden is on you to prove that the purpose of bitcoin is about some kind of "socioeconomic" (rather than political, or similar) freedom. I think you will find many opponents on that front.
I'm confused. You are suggesting that increased block size = less centralization?
This limit should be determined by the limits that exist within our technology at the time.
Don't you think coding an 8GB block size limit is jumping the gun a bit?
I do think that it might be jumping the gun a bit, but when I am in a position where I have to choose between 8GB blocks in twenty years from now or keeping the one megabyte restriction in place, I do prefer BIP101 over the Core implementation in this case. It is good to keep in mind that it will still only be at sixteen megabyte in more then four years from now. If there are any problems the block size can be decreased through a soft fork, this mechanism has already been implemented within BIP101. I would be fine with a two megabyte starting point for BIP101. I do not necessary think that BIP101 is the best technical solution, however right now it is the only alternative client that is proposing to increase the block size through consensus. Which is why I keep stressing the point that I would support a third option as soon as it becomes real, especially if that third alternative would represent a compromise between these two extreme positions. Try and understand that I have formulated this position using a realist political philosophy and that from this perspective and discipline of thought, what I am saying is not incorrect.
Sorry, but you keep repeating the same argument. BIP101 is a reckless, technically unsound implementation. That you keep supporting it based purely out of political spite is simply sad. I am glad the Core devs have not stooped to the level of responding to these political arguments.
So you'd rather create arbitrarily large limits now, so we can fork them back down after serious lapses in network security? (Can you guarantee network security in an 8GB environment? How?) As one example, is waiting for mass orphaning of blocks to appear > waiting for transaction volume to warrant raising the limit?
What did Nick Szabo call that -- the Mark Karpeles formula?
If you
must support one of the BIPs, the only responsible approach is BIP102.
Where 
.