I've tried really hard to try and see the opposing POV but I come up short every time, and I think that's because I can't understand the philosophy behind making BTC some elitist tool when it seemed right from the outset that it was anything but.
If that makes me part of the "free-shit" army, then so be it. I'm not (yet) so morally bankrupt that I think that my well being can only come at the expense of others. That's what cripplecoin sounds like, thats why I don't want any part of it.
You aren't trying that hard if you can't read and understand this fairly simple, single sentence summation of the opposing POV:
The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
Where in Davout's statement is the "moral bankruptcy?" All I see is economic literacy and an understanding of the technical limitations of scaling Bitcoin I/O.
Where in Davout's statement is the desire for well being coming "at the expense of others?" All I see is a workable plan for radical inclusion ("everyone gets to benefit"), albeit not in the manner preferred by those with atrociously paltry understandings of Bitcoin and economics.
Who are these financial institutions, and why do assume they are necessary. You seem to ignore the fact that bitcoin is money. Its a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value. The blockchain facilitates these things. Your financial institutions are an unnecessary complexity, the blockchain doesn't need financial institutions it *is* the institution.
Your summation quite clearly reveals some other agenda. You know that increasing the block size undermines it, so you are fighting tooth and nail to try and prevent it.
How nice of you to ignore my two questions (Where in Davout's statement is the "moral bankruptcy?" and Where in Davout's statement is the desire for well being coming "at the expense of others?"), thereby backing off your previous unkind assertions about our motivations.
Oh wait, you are still speculating about motives. Ok fine, let's 'go there' again....
What is the mysterious "some other agenda" you are talking about? If my summation "quite clearly reveals" it, the specifics shouldn't be very hard for you to elaborate.
The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important, only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."
You are of course aware the
radical transparency and real-time accounting/auditing enabled by blockchains in general is
all the rage. So why does it fall upon me to spoon feed you common knowledge as if you are five years old?
You don't ask questions because you want answers. Your questions are devices used to restate another persons argument in such a way that you can then make arguments against them which cannot be refuted. By doing this you are attempting to create the illusion that your arguments actually refute what the other person said (as opposed to your mischaracterisation of what they said).
As this is a generalisation, your immediate reaction is to then go away and discover a single incident where this did not happen, and then argue that because this didn't happen one time, it never happens.
You use the same pattern here, without a question.
The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important, only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."
[The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important] - Yes exact names are not important.
[only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."] - you attempt to establish the credibility of this statement by contrasting it against the absurd.
This is a recurring theme, and it is the whole basis of your argument. You craft entire walls of text specifically designed to give the impression that you are of superior intellect, and that the other person is a buffoon. You think that by doing this you increase the legitimacy of your position. You do not.
This is the subtlety that you are missing: "Let each thing stand on its own merit"
This applies equally to LN / Sidechains as it does to your own self.
Sometimes one is just plain wrong. Acknowledging this is more important than being right.
For example, your handwaving over full blocks. I likened them to Rome Burning for a very good reason. Full blocks and a constantly increasing mempool cause significant problems. Maybe you should look into it, its the thing that most concerned me and I think is the biggest motivation for making sure that full blocks don't happen.
Peter R's paper, demonstrating the block size is self limiting, puts a fork in it! (so to speak)
It isn't me that is trolling ICE. I post what I believe to be true, based on what I have read, and learned and understood. I think there is a difference between us though: I know I might be wrong, and if I am, I'll be fine about it.
