This guy has no idea what he's talking about if Google translate properly translated that page for me. There are no technical arguments and it is clearly stated on the Core roadmap for scaling why 2 MB blocks are bad right now. He talks under the assumption that Core plans on sticking with 1 MB forever and making the main chain a settlement layer for the banks. He also assumes that the fees will rise to a few hundred dollars. Both points are complete nonsense:
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?
The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?
The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.
The author of that article sees the LN or sidechain will be rendered useless if blocksize continues to expand.
